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.
Dr.Alex Vergis C.George Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : March 04, 2014 Judgment Delivered on : March 11, 2014 + WP(C) 5598/2003 DR.ALEX VERGIS C.GEORGE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.M.K.S.Menon, Advocate with Mr.Wills Mathews and Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Jha, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Pradeep Desodya and Mr.R.N.Parikh, Advocates for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. On March 22, 2000, the petitioner was served with a charge memo leveling two charges against him. The first charge was that when he was relieved, on transfer, from the 109 Battalion, CRPF on May 29, 1999 in the afternoon and required to report for duty with the 58 th Battalion CRPF, petitioner failed to report for duty after permissible joining time and this would constitute a failure to maintain devotion to duty and acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant there...
Sukhbir Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :4. h MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :11. h MARCH, 2014 + CRL.A. 677/ 2012 SUKHBIR ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate. VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Laxman Singh, Satish, Sukhbir and Sudhir were suspects in case FIR No.171/99 PS Jahangir Puri. Allegations against them were that on the night intervening 30/31.03.1999 at about 12.00 (night) near jhuggi No.493, H-2 Block, Shah Alam Bagh, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, they in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Nathu in an attempt to murder him. Daily Diary (DD) No.103B (Ex.Mark A) was recorded at 12.10 (night) at PS Jahangir Puri on getting information of the incident. PW-1 (SI Chandan Singh) from PCR went to the spot and shifted the injured to Hindu Rao hospital. Since no eye witness was available, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after ...
Phonographic Performance Limited Vs. M/S. Spring Club and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order Reserved on:10. th February, 2014. Order Pronounced on:11. th March, 2014 IA No.3846/2011 in CS(OS) 2664/2010 P HONOGRAPHIC P ER FORMANCE LIM ITED Through: ... P LAIN TIFF Mr. D.C. Pandey with Mr. Dheeraj Pandey, Advocates versus M/S . S PRING C LUB & O THERS Through: ..... D EFENDAN TS Mr. Ajay Sahni with Ms. Neharika Nainta Maini, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.IA No.3846/2011 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC) 1. The Defendants No.1 and 2 have, by the present application, sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CP C) . As per the ======================================================================= applicants, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law inasmuch as the plaintiff is neither residing nor carrying on business or works personally within the local limits of this Court. As per the applicants, the plain...
Nagar Parishad Alwar, Rajasthan Vs. Sh. Gurmit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.166/2013 11th March, 2014 % NAGAR PARISHAD ALWAR, RAJASTHAN ......Appellant Through: Mr. B.P. Shukla, Advocate. VERSUS SH. GURMIT SINGH & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Prem Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Nitika Bhutani, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 4.1.2012 and the first appellate court dated 14.5.2013; by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery has been decreed against the appellant (defendant no.2) for a sum of Rs.92,793/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum simple. The suit has been decreed not only against the appellant who was defendant no.2 but also against the defendant no.1 who was a contributory under the scheme.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defenda...
S Vs. AC
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: March 11, 2014 C.M. Nos.2284/2006 and 13056/2012 in Mat.App.19/2004 DR.SEEMA Through ..... Appellant Mr.R.K. Kapoor, Adv. with Ms.Shweta Kapoor, Adv. versus DR.ALKESH CHAUDHARY Through None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order I propose to decide the pending applications, being CM No.2284/2006 and CM No.13056/2012, filed by the appellant/applicant.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the matter are that Dr.Seema and Dr.Alkesh Chaudhary were married on 17th April, 1992. A male child was born to them on 22nd May, 1996. The child is with the mother. A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent on 9th January, 1997. It was allowed on 5th February, 2004. Dr.Seema filed an appeal before this Court which was dismissed on 31 st January, 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, Dr.Seema filed an application, being CM No.2284/2006 whic...
Tabita Chand Vs. Managing Committee, B.M. Gange Girls Sr. Secondary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:11. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 445/2014 TABITA CHAND ..... Petitioner versus MANAGING COMMITTEE, B.M. GANGE GIRLS SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr Romy Chacko, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr Feroz Ahmad, Adv. for R- 1 & 2. Ms Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-3. Mr Manoj V. George & Mr Aakarsh Kamra, Advs. for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J W.P.(C) 445/2014 & CM No.874/2014 (Stay) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the show cause notice dated 06.11.2013, issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner has also sought a direction qua respondent no.3 for fixation of pay scale of the petitioner as principal and for release of arrears of salary accordingly. Directions have also been sought for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner.2. Ordinarily this court would not have entertained...
iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Capt Jai Kumar Anand and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.1138/2011 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus CAPT JAI KUMAR ANAND & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Suman Doval and Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 09.09.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.32,51,000/- with interest @ 9% 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 / Insurance Company submits that the deceased was 26 years of age on the date of accident, i.e., 29.12.2007. She was unmarried. PW1 & PW2 stated that at the time of death, the deceased was employed with Reliance Haryana SEZ, Ltd. and was drawing a salary of Rs.3,75,000/- per annum + 15% incentive. Ld....
Madan Singh Bishta Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~R-130 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5548/2003 MADAN SINGH BISHTA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Anil Gautam, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Pradeep Desodiya, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The charge at which petitioner, working as a Constable with BSF, was tried at a General Security Force Court was for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, in that, near village Thana Basti, PS : Khowai, District Tripura (West) on June 25, 1999 around 19:30 hours he caused the death of Sh.Lalit Deb Barma by firing a shot from his 7.62 mm SLR Butt No.325, Registration No.BC-9989.2. The finding of the Court is that the petitioner was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and the sentence imposed is to undergo RI for...
Amarjeet Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:11. h March, 2014 + RFA1842013 & CMs No.6157/2013(for stay) & 6158/2013 (for condonation of 99 days delay in filing the appeal) AMARJEET KAUR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Megha Gaur and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Pallav Saxena and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advs for R-2. Mr. Sumit Bansal and Ms. Richa Oberoi, Advs. for SCB. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 25 th August, 2012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-04,South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi of dismissal in limine, as barred by time, suit No.354/2012 filed by the appellant/plaintiff, consequent to the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The appeal is accompanied with an application for co...
Enterprise Holdings, Inc Vs. Enterprise Auto Rentals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: March 11, 2014 + CS(OS) No.489/2013 and I.A. 4224/2013 & I.A. 12412/2013 ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC ..... Plaintiff Through Dr.Sheetal Vohra, Adv. with Mr.N.Mahabir, Adv. versus ENTERPRISE AUTO RENTALS ..... Defendant Through Mr.Joseph Koshy, Adv. with Mr.Vikas Thakur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Enterprise Holdings, Inc for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. against the defendant. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. 4224/2013.2. The suit alongwith said interim application was listed before court on 13th March, 2013. After hearing, detailed ex-parte order was passed against the defendant restraining it from offering vehicle rental and leasing services ...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »