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.
Synergy Multitech Ltd. Vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.220/2012 % 7th March, 2014 SYNERGY MULTITECH LTD. Through: ......Appellant None VERSUS HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD. Through: ...... Respondent Mr.K.G. Sharma, 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 filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC against the judgment of the court below dated 9.9.2011 by which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed has been dismissed. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 sought recalling of the ex parte judgment dated 9.9.2011 by which suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 15,49,994/along with interest @ 16% per annum on account of computer goods and peripherals supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant and for which a cheque of Rs. 15,50,000/- was given (rounded up figure) by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.2. The impugned order shows that the appella...
M/S.Parti Fibers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Chawla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.576 of 2004 Decided on :7. h March, 2014 M/S.PARTI FIBERS PVT. LTD. Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Santosh Pandey, Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi & Ms. Nishi Ranjan Singh, Advocates. Versus SAROJ CHAWLA & ANR. Through: Defendants Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aastha Dhawan, Adv. for D-1 & 2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B-769, Sector-I, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi85. The suit has been filed through one Munish Kumar Sharma, Director of the plaintiff company, who is duly authorized to sign, verify and institute the present suit vide a Board Resolution dated 19.5.2004. It was alleged in the plaint that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of plot No.1...
G.P. Sharma Vs. Hari Shankar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.50/2013 7th March, 2014 % G.P. SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Ashok Nagrath, Advocate. VERSUS HARI SHANKAR SHARMA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 8.2.2011 and the first appellate court dated 30.10.2012; by which the suit for possession filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint were that the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant are real brothers. Respondent/defendant was an employee of Railways and therefore was a member of the Railway Board House Building Co-operative Society. It was further RSA No.50/2013 the case of the appellant/plaintiff the respondent/d...
Dalip Kumar @ Albeli Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
$~R-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h March, 2014 + CRL.A.749/2010 DALIP KUMAR @ ALBELI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant Dalip Kumar @ Albeli impugns his conviction by the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.75/2009 arising out of FIR No.314/2006, Police Station Model Town. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Lal Bahadur between 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. on 20th May, 2006 at house No.H-107, DESU Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.2. By order on sentence dated 28.04.2010, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/in default of which he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for...
Natasha Gupta Vs. the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
$~35. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1104/2013 % Judgment dated 07.03.2014 NATASHA GUPTA Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.Kapil Gupta, Adv. versus THE KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD ..... Defendant Through : Mr.Abhijeet Swaroop, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 15249/2013 1. Present application has been filed by defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend.2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking recovery of Rs.58,79,152 along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As per the plaintiff, present suit is based on the written employment contract, which is in the form of a letter dated 1.7.2011, addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff.3. Before the rival submissions of the parties can be considered, the brief facts of the case are being noticed. The plaintiff claims herself to be a certified pilot, who is having a requ...
Gautam Kapoor and anr Vs. Tanya Kapoor and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.669/2014 Decided on :07. 03.2014 GAUTAM KAPOOR & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. V. Shankara, Advocate. versus TANYA KAPOOR & ANR ..... Defendants CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a suit for permanent injunction and declaration filed by the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the son and daughter of Late Major N.P.Kapoor who is alleged to have died in 1971 war. The defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiffs and the widow of Late Major N.P.Kapoor. It has been alleged in the plaint that at the time when the father of the plaintiffs died, they were minor and their mother/defendant No.1 was allotted a petrol pump by defendant No.2 under the Army War Widow Quota so as to provide them succor on account of the unfortunate death of their father. The petrol pump was allotted to defendant No.1 at S-19, Green Park Extension, Opposite Yusuf Sarai Market, Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi 110016. It...
Anil Khanna Vs. M/S. Fnp Events and Weddings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
M/S. Seiko Brushware (India) Vs. Cc, Icd, Tkd, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. None present for the appellant nor is there any adjournment application. Appeal is of four years old. 2. When the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that the appeal came on record on 10.2.2009, while Order- in-Original was passed on 4.8.08 and served on the appellant on 7.8.2008. There was no evidence before him as to the filing of appeal duly for which he concluded that appeal was barred by limitation in view of delay of 127 days. When there was no reason given to the Commissioner (Appeals) as to the delay, he dismissed the appeal. Law is well settled that statutory authority cannot be compelled to pass order beyond limitation. 3. There is an affidavit on record. There is no dispute by the appellant as to the date of service of order-in-original. Only plea of the appellant is that appeal papers were sent on 17.09.2008 by courier. Courier receipt is available on page 19 of appeal folder. That revealed that the date is not mentioned correctly in the courier receipt. T...
S.K. JaIn Vs. Vijay Kalra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:06. 03.2014 + CRL.A. 1011 of 2013 S.K. JAIN ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay K. Chopra, Adv. Through: versus VIJAY KALRA ..... Respondent Ms. Vasudha V. Indurkar, Adv. Through: + CRL.A. 1012 of 2013 SNEH JAIN ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay K. Chopra, Adv. Through: versus VIJAY KALRA ..... Respondent Ms. Vasudha V. Indurkar, Adv. Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The appellant in Crl. A. No.1011/2013, namely Shri S.K. Jain is the husband of the appellant in Crl. A. No.1012/2013, namely Smt. Sneh Jain. Two separate complaints one by Shri S.K. Jain and the other by Smt. Sneh Jain, were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). It was alleged in the complaint filed by Shri S.K. Jain that in September, 2002, the respondent/accused approached him and his wife for a loan of Rs.31.00 lakh. The complainant, Shri S.K. Jain, was earlier running a ...
Gopal Singh Vs. I.G.i.P.Ed. and Sport Sciences and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
$~59-60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:6. h March, 2014 % + WP(C) No.1898/1995 BHARAT BHUSHAN KHATRI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates. Versus I.G.I.P.ED. & SPORT SCIENCES & ORS. Represented by: ...... Respondents Mr. G. Tushar Rao and Mr. D.S.V. Krishnajee, Advocates for respondents 1,2 and 3. AND + WP(C) No.4392/1995 GOPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates. Versus I.G.I.P.ED. & SPORT SCIENCES & ORS. Represented by: WP(C) Nos. 1898/1995 & 4392/1995 ...... Respondents Mr. G. Tushar Rao and Mr. D.S.V. Krishnajee, Advocates for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. In WP(C) No.1898/1995, show cause notice dated 04.05.1995 is under challenge which reads as under: The Review Committee in its report of Meeting held on 6.3.1995 observed the following discrepancies/irregularities in your appointment as Assistant and subsequent temporary...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »