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.
Dinesh Sud Vs. M/S. Stitchwell Qualitex Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h March, 2014 Date of decision:11. h March,2014 % + CO. APPL. 179/2014 (FOR REVIEW) & CO. APPL. 180/2014 (FOR DELAY) IN CO.A. (SB) 69/2011 DINESH SUD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ajay Goyal with Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Mr. Bikash Mohanty and Ms. Ritu Chhabra, Advocates. versus M/S. STITCHWELL QUALITEX PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anish Dayal with Mr. Siddharth Vaid, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR R. V. EASWAR, J.:1. Company Application No.179/2014 has been filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 18.09.2013 in Company Appeal (SB) No.69/2011. Two points were urged before me for seeking review. The first is that in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference to a letter dated 31.12.1993 written jointly by the review petitioner (appellant in the appeal) and his father Mr. S.N. Sood to the Noida authority. The sentence in the said paragraph runs as follows:It is no...
Sadaab @ Shamshad Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.1377/2012 Judgment reserved on :26. h February, 2014 Judgment pronounced on :11. h March, 2014 % SADAAB @ SHAMSHAD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.O.P. Saxena, APP for the State. SI Ombir Singh, PS Farsh Bazar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT:1. On 04.05.2011 at about 10.35 p.m. one Dharmender son of Sh.Jagdish admitted injured Rahul (PW3) in Dr.Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, Karkardooma, Delhi in injured condition. Constable Mukesh Kumar posted at that hospital informed PS Farsh Bazar about the admission of injured Rahul in the hospital. SI Omvir Singh (PW8) reached the hospital, collected the MLC of the injured Rahul (PW3). PW3 was referred to Guru Tegh Bahadur hospital where he was again declared unfit for statement. An endorsement was made on DD No.34A Ex.PW8/B. On the basis of which an FIR No.116/2011 was registered for offence under Se...
Sadaab @ Shamshad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.1403/2012 Judgment reserved on :24. h February, 2014 Judgment pronounced on :11. h March, 2014 % SADAAB @ SHAMSHAD Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. Appellant in J/c. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.O.P. Saxena, APP for the State. SI Narendra Kumar, PS Anand Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT:1. As per the prosecution, PW3complainant/ Surender and PW8/Dildar on 4th May, 2011 at about 8.30-8.50 pm were taking a walk at CBD Ground and saw three/four boys coming from opposite sides and the boys caught hold of them and asked them to hand over their possession. On refusal, one of them stabbed complainant PW3 on his left thigh and PW8 at his leg. These boys also snatched Samsung Mobile 5233 bearing number as 9818020543 and a brown colour purse having licence, photographs and some documents of Catmos company and a cash of Rs.600-700 from the complainant/PW3 and a cash amount from PW8.2. The assailant...
Raghunath Roy Vs. Ishwari Devi 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 % + CS(OS) 1265/2011 & CC No.91/2012 RAGHUNATH ROY Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Adv. Versus ISHWARI DEVI & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Neelam Rathore with Mr. Syed Amber Azad, Advs. for D-1 to 3. Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advs. for D4&5. Ms. Rita Jha, Adv. for D-10 to 12. AND + CS(OS) 1300/2011 RAGHNUNATH ROY Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Adv. versus ISHWARI DEVI & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Neelam Rathore with Mr. Syed Amber Azad, Advs. for D-1 to 3. Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advs. for D4&5. Ms. Rita Jha, Adv. for D-10 to 12 CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 Both these suits together with Counter Claim No.91/2012 in CS(OS) No.1265/2011 are listed for framing of issues.2. The counsel for the plaintiff in both the suit, the counsel for the defendant no.1 to 3, the counsel ...
Dr Neelam Bhalla Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. 03.2014 LPA2292014 DR NEELAM BHALLA ..... Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr R. Sathish, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ (ORAL) CM45562014 The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. LPA2292014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.02.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 83/2014 filed by the appellant/petitioner. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The learned Single Judge has extracted the relevant portion of the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the CIC which is to the following effect:- LPA22920144. It is a matter of ...
Smt. Elsammma John and ors. Vs. M/S Brintex Sales Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.319/2013 & CM No.12225/2013 11th March, 2014 % SMT. ELSAMMMA JOHN & ORS. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. VERSUS M/S BRINTEX SALES CORPORATION ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Raj Rishi, Adv. 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 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter EC Act) impugning the order dated 6.5.2013 which has dismissed the claim petition under the Act on the ground that the appellants/applicants had already filed a petition and received compensation by means of earlier proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short M.V.Act).2. Before me it is not disputed that appellants/applicants did exercise the option of proceeding under the M.V.Act and taking compensation therein and only thereafter having filed the subject petition under the EC Act, however, what is argued before...
Zenith Media Limited (Now Media Edge Cia India Pvt Vs. Amrit Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. 03.2014 FAO(OS) 395/2013 ZENITH MEDIA LIMITED (Now MEDIA EDGE CIA INDIA PVT. LTD.) versus AMRIT PAL SINGH ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Atul Sharma, Mr Milanka Choudhury, Mr Sarojanand Jha, Mr Abhishek Sharma, Mr Yash Srivastava and Ms Satakshi Sood. For the Respondent : Mr Manish Kohli and Mr Pradeep Shukla. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in IA No.8006/2012 in CS(OS) No.1361/2006. The said application was filed by the defendant/appellant under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) for framing of an additional issue. The said application was rejected by the learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned order dat...
Bhairu Prasad Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.999/2006 is directed against the order dated 12.4.2012 of the CDRF (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Bhairu Prasad, Complainant present in person and Shri H.L. Verma, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/complainant delay of 210 days that appellant was busy in the marriage of his son. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explan...
M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
G. Raghuram, J. 1. The impugned order dated 29.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vide Order-in-Original No.57-58/2012-2013 dated 30.03.2013 disallowed the cenvat credit of Rs.24,34,70,614/- allegedly wrongly availed by the appellant and distributed by IOC-AFS during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012, in contravention of Rule 2(l), 2(m) and 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; directed recovery of this amount; and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 of the Rules, for contravention of specified rules. The petitioner is an input service distributor. Cenvat credit was distributed to the manufacturer of High Speed Diesel viz. M/s. IOC, Panipat Refinery. 2. Identical proceedings were earlier initiated by way of two show cause notices, dated 21.09.2010 covering the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. These proceedings were however dropped by the Commissioner by the order dated 27.08.2012 on the ground that the demand for recovery of cenvat credit cannot be ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta K. Mithal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. h March,2014 % + MAC.APP. No.262/2012 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate. Versus SANGEETA K. MITHAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms.Shruti Shukla, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.Sanjiv Bahl and Mr.Eklavya Bahl, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The instant appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 17.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.49,73,576/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2001, Shri Kalp Mithal, the deceased was going to Faridabad in a Car bearing No.HR51H3878 being driven by his friend Shri Rahul Malik, i.e., respondent No.5. The weather was foggy. The offending vehicle...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »