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.
Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :20. h MARCH, 2014 + CRL.A.1073/2012 MOHD. AZIZ @ GUDDU Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate. VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Open Court) 1. Mohd.Aziz @ Guddu (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 31.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.137/11 arising out of FIR No.267/08 registered at Police Station Dabri by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 395/412 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2012, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395 and 412 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.05.2008 at about 11.45 A.M. at house No.RZ-B-2, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, Dabri, he and his associates committed decoity and deprived the complainant Smt.Seema Sharma and he...
M.D., Punjab State Bus Stand Management Company Lt Vs. Bindu and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:20. h March, 2014 + MAC.APP. No.733/2013 M.D., PUNJAB STATE BUS STAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Adv. Versus BINDU & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Manpreet Kaur and Ms. Bhavna Arora, Advs. for R1 to R5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM. No.12366/2013 (For Delay) In view of the averments made in the instant application, delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. Accordingly, instant application stands disposed of. + MAC.APP. No.733/2013 1. Vide the present appeal, appellant has assailed the award dated 24.10.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.13,29,150/-.2. Pursuant to order dated 13.08.2013, Ld. Counsels named above appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. However, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.6 despite service.3. Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties jointly ...
Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:13.3.2014 Judgment delivered on:20.3.2014 CRL.A. 828/2001 RAJU ..... Appellant Through Appellant with his counsel Mr.A.K.Singh, Mr. Jai Singh Kanwar, Mr. Anurag Gohil, Mr. Pramod K. Tiwary and Mr. Arun K. Panwar, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with SI Shashi Kant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Present appeal has impugned the judgment and order of sentence both dated 06.8.2001 wherein appellant Raju has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 month. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. had been granted to him. 2 Record shows that the present FIR has been registered on the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix Omwati (PW-6). The complaint was registered on 04.12.1999 wherein it was disclosed by her that while she ...
Shakuntla Rani and anr. Vs. Guddoo Yadav and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. h March, 2014 MAC.APP. 694/2010 SHAKUNTLA RANI & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. versus GUDDOO YADAV & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the award dated 03.04.2010, whereby, Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.17,632/- for the injuries received by the injured in the accident in question with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.2. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.3. It is important to note that the injured Surjit Singh met with an accident on 19.11.1999 and died on 02.05.2003. The Claim Petition was filed on 25.07.2006. However, Ld. Tribunal considered the petition and granted com...
Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harjeet Singh (Dead) (Th ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by Ld. DCDRF Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in complaint case No.811/2007, Shri Harjeet Singh Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The complainant/Respondent (late) Shri Harjeet Singh was insured by the appellant/OP Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. under the scheme of œHealth Shield Premium Insurance Policy? with effect from 13.7.2005 till 19.6.2008 by the IRDA for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the cumulative bonus of Rs.45,000/-. The insured paid premium regularly. The appellant OP issued policy cover for 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the last was from 20.6.07 to 19.6.08. The complainant/respondent felt chest pain and breathlessness on 11.4.07. He was immediately rushed to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri, New Delhi for treatment. During the course of treatment by the Doctors, various tests were conducted and he was discharged on 13.-4.07. In his di...
Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai Vs. Harjeet Singh (D ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Judicial Member 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by Ld. DCDRF Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in complaint case No.811/2007, Shri Harjeet Singh Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The complainant/Respondent (late) Shri Harjeet Singh was insured by the appellant/OP Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. under the scheme of œHealth Shield Premium Insurance Policy? with effect from 13.7.2005 till 19.6.2008 by the IRDA for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the cumulative bonus of Rs.45,000/-. The insured paid premium regularly. The appellant OP issued policy cover for 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the last was from 20.6.07 to 19.6.08. The complainant/respondent felt chest pain and breathlessness on 11.4.07. He was immediately rushed to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri, New Delhi for treatment. During the course of treatment by the Doctors, various tests were conducted and he was discharged on 13.-4.07. In his disch...
Cce, Chandigarh Vs. Ramesh Gupta, Partner
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by Department against the Order-in-Appeal No32-33/CE/CHD/2006 dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand allowing the appeals of the respondents-assessee, setting aside the order of adjudicating authority confirming demand of Rs.16,39,289/- also equal amount of penalty under section 11AC and also personal penalty of Rs.15 lakh imposed on Shri Ramesh Gupta under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that M/s.Swati Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.44-45, Sector-i, Industrial Area, Parwanoo, H.P. are engaged in the manufacture of water storage tanks, plastic pipes and non dutiable product i.e. sprinkler and drip irrigation systems falling under chapter 39 and 84 respectively of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The appellants availed benefit of Notification No.49-50/2003 dated 10/6/2003 as ...
M/S Glyph International Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On :20. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 6224/2013 M/S GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby it ruled that an appeal in respect of refund and rebate claims is not maintainable before it in view of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act since it finds specific mention in Section 83 after its amendment in 2011.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a service tax assessee. It made a refund claim in respect of service tax export turn-over. Aggrieved by an order refusing the refund, it preferred an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this case accepted the revenues cont...
Consolidated Contractors International Company S.a Vs. Consolidated Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
$~13. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1399/2012 % Judgment dated 20.3.2014 CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY S.A.L ..... Plaintiff Through : Ms.Girija Krishan Varma, Mr.Manoj K. Chhabra and Ms.Deepika Sehgal, Advs. versus CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Saurabh Srivastava and Ms.Shilpa Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 13930/2013.1. This is an application filed by plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submits that the amendment sought is formal in nature and the same was missed out inadvertently as it could not be stated in the plaint that there is violation under the Copyright Act as well.3. Learned counsel for the defendants opposes this application primarily on the ground of delay. Counsel further submits that issues in this matter have already been framed and in case the present applic...
Kapoor Singh @ Kale Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 510/1999 KAPOOR SINGH @ KALE Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA ORDER % 20.03.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(Oral) 1. Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 18th August 1999 and 19th August 1999, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant has been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo RI for a period of three months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief, can be summarized as under:- That a few days before the incident Jaibir Singh had sold two buffaloes to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »