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.
Sher Singh @ Sheru Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :18. h MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :21. t MARCH, 2014 + CRL.A.792/2012 SHER SINGH @ SHERU Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CRL.A.1321/2011 HARISH @ BUNTY Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Kavita Kapil, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. AND + CRL.A.583/2012 VINOD @ AJAY ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Sher Singh @ Sheru (A-1), Harish @ Bunty (A-2) and Vinod @ Ajay (A-3) impugn a judgment dated 09.08.2011 in Sessions Case No.25/10 arising out of FIR No.63/10 PS Bharat Nagar by which they were held perpetrator of the crime under Sections 392/34 IPC. A-3 in addition was convicted with the aid of Section 397. By an order on sentence d...
Neo Milk Products Private Limited Vs. Neo Foods Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:21. 03.2014 FAO (OS) 123/2014 NEO MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant versus NEO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Aarthy Venkat, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Bhargava, Mr Rahul S. Sahai, Mr Ankur Sangal and Mr Saurabh Seth, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA Nos.17169/2013 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC) and 17849/2013 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) in CS (OS) 2064/2013.2. The question that arose for consideration in these applications was whether the interim injunction granted by the Court in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by its order dated 28.10.2013 should continue during the ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Kanwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.491/2012 & CMs 20494/2012 (stay), 20495/2012 (delay) 21st March, 2014 % DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ......Appellant Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv. VERSUS RAM KANWAR Through: ...... Respondent Mr. P.C.Dogra, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM204952012 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO4912012 & CMs 20494/2012 (stay) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter the Act) against the judgment of the Commissioner dated 17.8.2012 which had allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent herein and who was working as a Conductor with the appellant. The respondent continues to work with the appellant at the same position after the accident, and there is no loss of pay, however, in my opinion, the respondent is ...
Dhruv Dayal Gupta Vs. Hcl Infosolutions Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t March, 2014. + FAO422011 DHRUV DAYAL GUPTA & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Pradeep Diwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocates. Versus SATYAWATI DEVI AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocates. AND + RFA1462011 DHRUV DAYAL GUPTA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pradeep Diwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocates. Versus HCL INFOSOLUTIONS LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 FAO No.42/2011 impugns the judgment/order dated 27th September, 2010 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-VI (Central), Delhi dismissing the objections preferred by the appellants Dhruv Dayal Gupta and Ishwar Dayal Gupta in Probate Case No.39/2006 and granting probate to the respondent Smt. Satyawati Devi Aggarwa...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :21. t MARCH, 2014 + CRL.A. 1161/2012 KULDEEP SINGH Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kundan Kumar, Advocate. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 06.08.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.420/09 arising out of FIR No.299/2009 PS Vijay Vihar by which the appellant Kuldeep Singh held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 14.08.2012, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine ` 50,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant as projected in the charge- sheet were that on 06.09.2009 at about 09.30 P.M. near Rice Mill Rithala, Lal Dora village Rithala, he and his companion Raj (Not arrested) in furtherance of common intention inflicted gunshot injuries to Sachin ...
Nirmal Vs. Ramesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.108/2013 & CM No.8732/2013 (Stay) % NIRMAL Through:21. t March, 2014 ......Appellant Mr. Y.S.Chauhan, Adv. VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents. Mr. Ashim Sridhar, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant/tenant/defendant no.2 against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 19.2.2013 and the first appellate court dated 27.4.2013, by which the suit of the respondent no.1/landlord/plaintiff has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC with respect to the possession and arrears of rent at the admitted rate of rent of Rs.5,500/- and future mesne profits.2. In the city of Delhi suit for possession can be filed in civil court, instead of approaching the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, if three conditions exist:- (i) RSA1082013 there was a relati...
Dhruv Dayal Gupta and anr Vs. Satyawati Devi Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t March, 2014. + FAO422011 DHRUV DAYAL GUPTA & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Pradeep Diwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocates. Versus SATYAWATI DEVI AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocates. AND + RFA1462011 DHRUV DAYAL GUPTA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pradeep Diwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocates. Versus HCL INFOSOLUTIONS LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 FAO No.42/2011 impugns the judgment/order dated 27th September, 2010 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-VI (Central), Delhi dismissing the objections preferred by the appellants Dhruv Dayal Gupta and Ishwar Dayal Gupta in Probate Case No.39/2006 and granting probate to the respondent Smt. Satyawati Devi Aggarwa...
Preetesh Raman Singh Vs. Delhi High Court Through Registrar General
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
$~08 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t March, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1869/2014 PREETESH RAMAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advocate. versus DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rekha Palli and Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Rule 14 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 reads as under:14. A candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination, if he is:a) a citizen of India; b) a person practicing as an Advocate in India or a person qualified to be admitted as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961; and c) not more than **32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is pursuing LLB course from the National Law University, Jodhpur and is presently in the 10th semest...
M/S Harkaran Dass Deep Chand Vs. Viren Agrotech Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
$~11. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2377/2010 % Judgment dated 21.03.2014 M/S HARKARAN DASS DEEP CHAND Through : Mr.Amit Punj, Adv. ..... Plaintiff versus VIREN AGROTECH PVT LTD Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.60,36,522/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18%, per annum.2. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendant Under Order XXXVII CPC in Form 4 of Appendix B CPC. Since, the defendant could not be served in the ordinary way, the plaintiff filed an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service. Defendant has since been served by publication. Despite substituted service defendant has failed to enter appearance in the matter.3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays for passing of a decree while relying on Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) of CPC.4. A...
Nasik Fly Ash Bricks Association Through Its President Sunil Mendhekar ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
1. The Applicant - Nashik Fly Ash Association claims to be an Association working on issues related to the fly ash and has filed this Application being aggrieved due to non- implementation of MoEF Notifications, related to fly ash utilization, issued from time to time. The Applicant claims that the Respondents have individually and collectively failed in effectively implementing these Notifications, resulting in inadequate utilization of fly ash which has resulted into over exploitation of natural top soil of earth, causing damages to (J) Appln.. No.16 of 2013 2 the environment. It is also pleaded that due to non-utilization of fly ash for brick manufacturing, the traditional red bricks are continued to be used and though there are norms for use of fly ash, even for manufacturing of the red bricks, yet same are not followed. The brick kilns manufacturing red bricks are also polluting activities as they emit air pollutants. 2. The Applicant submits that the Respondent 1 is Ministry of E...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »