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.
Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 198 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brij Mohan Bharti, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr.Jabar Singh, Mr. M.P.S. Tomar and Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE .... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP. With CRL.A. 243 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR PATHAK ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brij Mohan Bharti, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr.Jabar Singh, Mr. M.P.S. Tomar and Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE .... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP. and CRL.A. 477 of 2008 SHIV SAGAR Criminal Appeals Nos.198 of 2008, 243 of 2008, 477 of 2008 ..... Appellant Page 1 of 14 Through: Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brij Mohan Bharti, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr.Jabar Singh, Mr. M.P.S. Tomar and Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE .... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0603.2014 1. These three appeals a...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Kunwar Pal Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:6. h March, 2014 MAC.APP. 175/2011 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. Versus KUNWAR PAL SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 25.11.2010, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.8,05,344/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased Devender Kumar was claimed to be working as Sales Executive and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, however, the claimants could not prove the employment of the deceased and his salary. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,633/- per month as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled person pr...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Bob Employees Union Through Its Secretary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on February 25, 2014 Judgment Delivered on March 06, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2546/2011 BANK OF BARODA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.R. Kumar, Advocate with Ms. I.Abenla Aier, Advocates versus BOB EMPLOYEES UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Inder Jit Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition by the Bank of Baroda (Bank, in short) is to the award dated July 16, 2010 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal in short) in I.D. No.11/2006 whereby the Tribunal has held the circular issued by the bank for pay fixation, as neither justified nor legal. It has further called upon the bank to restore the pay of the Armed Guards at the stage, on which, they would have received their pay in case circular dated January 07, 1993 would not have been in existence.2. The brief facts are, the Ex-Servicemen are re-employed by the p...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:6. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.372/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Manmeet Sethi and Mr. Anupam Yadav, Advocates. Versus KRISHNA DEVI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.J.K.Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 22.03.2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.8,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the age of the deceased Shri Lallan Prashad was 52 years on the date of the accident, i.e., 02.11.2004. He was working as a driver and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. While awarding the compensation towards loss of dependency, the learned ...
Champa Devi Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Northern R
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.344/2012 6th March, 2014 % CHAMPA DEVI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Singh, 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 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 8.2.2012 which has dismissed the claim petition.2. The claim petition has been dismissed because the Tribunal holds that when the train is being placed at a platform it is not a train carrying passengers as per the meaning of the expression as found in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore there is no untoward incident for the Railways to be fastened with the liability of compensation. The relevant paras of the impugned judgment dated 8.2.2012 reads as under:The Untow...
Union of India Vs. Devki Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.26/2013 6th March, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate. Versus DEVKI DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Rupika Singh, 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 by the Railways against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 30.8.2012 allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents herein.2. The facts as pleaded by the respondents were that the deceased Gian Chand on 18.7.2009 after purchasing a valid ticket bearing no.04460956 was travelling from Delhi Junction to Muradabad by the Delhi Barrely Passenger train. It was further pleaded that during the course of travelling when the train reached between Pilkhua and Hapur, Sh. Gian Chand fell down from the train and received serious injuries which resulted in his death. The deceased was admitted to Saraswati Medical Hospital...
M/S Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. Vs. Ms Amritpal Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.227/2013 6th March, 2014 % M/S COTTAGE INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Debasish Moitra, Mr. Saurabh Verma and Mr. Sidharth Mohan, Advs. VERSUS MS AMRITPAL KAUR & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harshbir Singh Kohli, Advocates. 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 under Section 100 CPC impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 21.4.2012 and the first appellate court dated 7.6.2013; by which the application of respondents/plaintiffs/landlords under Order 12(6) CPC has been allowed and suit for possession and mesne profits have been decreed against the appellant/defendant/tenant.2. In the city of Delhi civil courts can entertain suits for possession when three factors exist: (i) there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between ...
Raghav Bahl Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Buildin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + ITA9022007 RAGHAV BAHL Judgment delivered on:06. 03.2014 ... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Adv. with Mr Maayank Nagi, Ms Husnal Syali Nagi. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Adv. with Mr P.Roy Choudhry, Mr Akash Vajpai. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) Appeal No.106/2006 decided on 31.10.2006 in respect of the block period 1.4.1991 to 03.08.2000. The only question of law which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under:Whether the assessing officer is bound to record satisfaction within the meaning of section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961...
The Coca Cola Company and anr Vs. Narsing Rao and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:6. h March, 2014. % + CS (OS) 1493/2013 THE COCA COLA COMPANY & ANR .......Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Ekta Sarin Versus NARSING RAO & ORS .....Defendants Through: None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff has instituted this suit ( on 29 th July, 2013) claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or authorising the manufacture, selling or offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, displaying or in any other manner whatsoever using the offending trademarks KELBY and/or KELBY Club Soda (label) and/or KELBY bottled water (label) and/or the offending bottle shape and/or any other mark which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the registered trademarks KINLEY Club Soda (label), KINLEY (label), KINLEY (word) and DANUBE Bottle shape of the Plaintiff No.1, as a trademark or part of a trademark, trade name or part of a trade name or in any other manner whatsoever so as to...
Rohtas Singh and anr Vs. Bhateri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO1012007 % 6th March, 2014 ROHTAS SINGH & ANR ......Appellants Through: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Panigrahi, Adv. VERSUS BHATERI DEVI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Gita Dhingra, 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 Order 43 Rule 1 sub-Rule (d) CPC impugning the judgment of the appellate court which has dismissed the application of the appellants-defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Suit filed was a suit for possession and mesne profits and decreed by the judgment dated 11.1.2002.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant no.2 was the defendant no.2 in the suit. Defendant no.2 is the daughter of respondent no.1 herein, the plaintiff no.1 in the trial court. There were five other plaintiffs i.e plaintiff no.2 to 6 and they were the sons and daughter of plaintiff no.1 Smt. Bhateri Devi. The suit was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »