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.
Smt. Ram Payari Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.142/2012 31st March, 2014 % SMT. RAM PAYARI ....Appellant Through: None. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. T. K. Mukherjee, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2011 dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant and who is a widow of the deceased Sh. Ram Phal who died in an untoward incident by falling from Ala Hazrat Express train near the Old Delhi railway station. This appeal is an unnecessary burden on the appellant and thereafter at the end of this judgment I am giving certain directions because I find that in quite a few cases coming up before this Court it is noticed that certain Benches of the Railway Claims Tribunal do not deal with the relevant documents which have been fil...
M/S. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.320/2012 & C.M. No.12975/2012 (stay) % 31st March, 2014 M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Appellant Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. CHAMPA DEVI AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocate for respondent No.6. 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 by the appellant/insurance company under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 29.3.2012 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, and who are the dependants of the deceased Sh. Raju Paswan.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sh. Raju Paswan was employed as a driver by the respondent no.6 herein (respondent no.1 before the Commissioner) for driving his truck bearing no.HR-63-A-1249. On 30.5.2008, the decea...
New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Sanjay Tyagi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 889/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Shantanu Bhardwaj, Adv. Versus SANJAY TYAGI & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.08.2010, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.1,15,593/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the offending Tractor was insured with the appellant Company, whereas at the time of accident, the said Tractor was carrying a Trolley. Thus, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.3. To strengthen his arguments, ...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. h September, 2013 Date of Decision:31. t March, 2014 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.387/1998 RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. D.C. Mathur & Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Jairaj Mudgal & Mr. Harsh Bora, Advocates Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J:1. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment dated 30 th July, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Vide order on sentence dated 31st July, 1998, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Sections 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo ri...
Raja Ram @ Chota Raja Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h March, 2014 Pronounced on:31. t March, 2014 + CRL. A.597/2010 RAJA RAM @ CHOTA RAJA Through ..... Appellant Mr. Bankim Kulshrestha, Advocate Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.1. Appellant Raja Ram @ Chota Raja impugns the judgment dated 01.10.2009 and the order on sentence dated 12.10.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.175/2009 (arising out of FIR No.254/2008 Police Station Mandawali) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. DD No.44-A, dated 29.06.2008 was recorded in Police Station Mandawali by E-...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO6412002 31st March, 2014 % RAJESH SHARMA ......Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Malhotra, Advocate VERSUS KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, 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 under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 challenging the judgment of the probate court dated 3.8.2002 dismissing the probate petition as barred by time. I may note that probate court has otherwise held that the Will in question dated 13.7.1989 of the deceased testatrix Smt. Sneh Prabha Sharma was duly executed and attested, and the deceased testatrix Smt. Sneh Prabha Sharma was of sound disposing mind at the time of making of the Will. In this appeal cross-objections have also been filed by the respondent, and who was respondent No.2/objector before the probate court. Cross-objections challenge the findings of t...
Vinod Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority, Through Vice-chairman and ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. Appellant Shri Vinod Kumar has impugned the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi (in short the `District Forum. Vide said orders the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant in the District Forum was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant got himself registered with respondent/DDA for the allotment of a plot in the year 1981 under a scheme called Rohini LIG Scheme. He was allotted LIG plot bearing No.62, in Pocket-8, Sector-24, Rohini measuring 32 Sq.mtr. vide letter dated 29.10,1991. He was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.21,229/-. Admittedly, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount in three instalments and as and when called upon to do so. He remained in touch with the DDA for handing him over the physical possession of the plot. He did not receive any letter from DDA informing him of the status of allotment. Last such letter in the series written to the ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Through the Manager (Landhpf), New ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial). 1. The appellant has impugned the orders dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi (in short `District Forum) vide which the LRs of the deceased Shri Subhash Chander were held entitled to the insurance claim in respect of the deceased Shri Subhash Chander with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim to the date of payment along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Deceased Shri Subhash Chander was insured jointly with his wife Mrs. Murti Devi vide policy No.121057317 commencing from 28.2.2000 to 28.2.2020. The policy was known as Jeevan Sathi ( double cover joint life plan) with profits (with accident benefit.). Shri Subhash Chander died on 21.1.2003 i.e. within three years from the date of commencement of the policy. Claim filed by his wife was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 24.8.2004 on the grounds of concealment of true and material facts. Contention of ...
R.N. Srivastava, New Delhi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J): 1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: a. To direct the Respondents to release the pensionary benefits/terminal benefits to the applicant on the basis of his salary taken at Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. Direct Respondents to pay interest to the applicant on the delayed payment. 2. Brief facts of applicants case run thus: Applicant was initially appointed as Mono Operator on 3.5.1973 in pay scale of Rs.380-560/- which was revised to IVth CPC pay scale of Rs.1320-2040/-. As letter press technology was scrapped to keep up with the technological advancement, applicant and others were appointed as Key Board Operators (Offset) on regular basis w.e.f. 20.12.1989 in pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, vide order dated 20.12.1989 (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, Key Board Operators were re-designated as DTP Operators. 2.1. Consequent upon introduction of ACP Scheme (Annexure A-3), the applicant was granted 1st financial upgradation with ef...
Si Ajay Solanki, Delhi Vs. the Commissioner of Police Delhi Police, Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, J. 1. Vide notice No. 2367-68/ACP/PB dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P-1), the applicant was asked to show cause as to why for his demeanor of not checking the banks on day-to-day basis he should not be censured. He was given fifteen days to submit his reply to the said notice. In his response dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) the applicant explained that all divisional staff had been given instructions to check the banks and remain alert while patrolling nearby the banks. Having considered his reply, the disciplinary authority passed an order No.57-76/ACP/PB dated 3.1.2012 confirming the show cause notice and censuring the conduct of the applicant. In the penalty order, it has been observed that the applicant also disobeyed the directions of the senior by not submitting his reply to the explanation within the stipulated period of seven days. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the penalty order was not accepted with a view that when he was specifically directed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »