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.
Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.40/2013 and CM32032013(stay) 5th March, 2014 % SATYAPAL Through: ......Appellant Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate VERSUS SLICK AUTO ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD. & ORS....... Respondents Through: 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 second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 25.10.2012 by which the first appellate court has accepted the appeal filed by the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2012 passed by the trial court for an amount of Rs. 98,880/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 32,960/- w.e.f 7.7.2007 and on Rs. 65,920/- w.e.f 16.7.2007 i.e. interest has been granted from the date of the bills. Pendente lite and future interest is awarded @ 12% per annum simple. Suit has been decreed for goods which were supplied by the app...
Satya Prakash Vs. Icici Lombard General, Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant/ Appellant has filed this appeal under section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against judgment and order dt. 07.03.2012 passed by DCDRF (Central) Maharana Pratab Bus Terminal, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. In complaint case no. 307/10 Sh. Satya Prakash Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 2) Complainant/ Appellant secured a Health Insurance policy no. 40341/fpp/02853238/01/000, Vide Card No. IHPN-05229030/01 for Rs.2,00,000/- The period of Insurance was 21.11.2009 to 20.11.2011. On 23.02.2010 with complainant felt heart problem, he therefore approached Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for treatment. He made efforts to get cash less Medical facility from the Insurance Company but could not get proper response. Ultimately he was admitted in the hospital on 01.03.2010. He underwent Heart-Surgery in the Hospital and was discharged on 09.03.2010. Before discharge he made payment of Rs.1,86,488/- on 17.03.2010. He again felt so...
Khemani Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. Appeal is of 2006 and has been rolling on board. Notice was issued on 9.1.2014 but no one caused appearance from the appellants side. Since the matter is of 2006, I proceed to decide the matter with the assistance of learned JCDR. 2. While going through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.67(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2006 dated 24.1.2006, I find that the issue for consideration was whether cold rolled stainless steel patta subjected to rerolling process will amount to manufacture or not. It is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8 and 9 has dealt with matter in detail. 3. Learned JCDR points out that the judgment of the Tribunal in Indian Strips vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-2004 (173) ELT 265 (Tri.-Mum) wherein after following amendment in the chapter 4 to chapter 72, it was held that cold rolling process will amount to manufacture and duty was demandable. For the purpose of clarity, para 20 is reproduced as under:- 20. The Commissioner relies on Chapter Note 4 of...
State of U.P. Vs. Shri Mahesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1460/2014 & CM No.3039/2014 Date of decision:5. h March, 2014 % STATE OF U.P. Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Anil Mittal, Adv. versus SHRI MAHESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. By a separate order we have dismissed the writ petition. We now pen down our reasons for doing so.2. Before us the petitioners have assailed the order dated 1 st of February 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A.No.3/2007 with T.A.No.2/2007 after the same were remanded to it.3. Shri Mahesh Kumar was working as a lecturer in Mathematics in the Lucknow University which job he gave up to join the UP Provincial Forest Service in the year 1952 as a direct recuit as an Assistant Conservator of Forests. In the year 1960, he was duly promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest. He was promoted to the post of Deputy conservato...
Yogesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. 02.2014 Date of Decision:04. 03.2014 % + Crl. A. No.259 of 2010 YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. Through: .Appellants Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, Adv. Versus STATE Through: .Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 19.4.2006, Police Control Room was informed that a girl had hanged herself in House No.56, Gali No.10, Sitapuri. The information, when conveyed to Police Station Dabri, was recorded there vide DD No.28A, a copy of which was given to ASI Surender Singh of the said Police Station for investigation. When the police officer reached the aforesaid spot, he found a young girl hanging with a ceiling fan, using her chunni for the purpose. The concerned SDM was called to the spot and he recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar, who is the father of the deceased and Rajesh Kumar, who is her paternal uncle. Ramesh Kumar told the SDM that his daughter Mamta was married to Yogesh Kumar (appellant before thi...
Anil Sharma and ors. Vs. Jeevan Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :28. 11.2013 Pronounced on:04. 03.2014 + RFA (OS) 14/2008, C.M. APPL. 1201/2013 JEEVAN DASS ..Appellant Through: Sh. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Jasmeet Singh and Sh. Gursimranjit Singh, Advocates. Versus + ANIL SHARMA ..Respondents Through: Sh. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Suresh Singh, Advocate. RFA (OS) 20/2008 ANIL SHARMA AND ORS. ..Appellants Through: Sh. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Suresh Singh, Advocate. Versus JEEVAN DASS ..Respondent Through: Sh. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Jasmeet Singh and Sh. Gursimranjit Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present common judgment will dispose off two appeals RFA (OS) 14/2008 (filed by the plaintiff Jeevan Das) and RFA (OS) RFA (OS) 14/2008 & RFA (OS) 20/2008 Page 1 20/2008 (filed by Anil Sharma, defendant). Both the appeals are directed against the diffe...
The Coca-cola Company and anr. Vs. K.M. Salim
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: March 4, 2014 + CS(OS) 102/2013, I.A. No.932/2013 & I.A. No.2869/2014 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Ms.Ekta Sarin, Adv. versus K.M SALIM ..... Defendant Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and damages for infringement of registered trade mark, infringement of copyright, passing off and act of unfair competition.2. Despite of service, on 15th March, 2013, the defendant chose not to appear in Court. He was proceeded ex-parte on 14th February, 2014. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for pronouncement of judgment against the defendant on account of failure to file the written statement and to contest the matter.3. Counsel for the plaintiffs made her submissions on merit also.4. Let me examine the case of plaintiffs on merit.5. The plaintiff No.1, the Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), is a corporati...
Santosh @ Santosh Sav Vs. Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04th March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 957/2013 SANTOSH @ SANTOSH SAV Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv. Versus GOPAL SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms. Shruti Shukla, Advs. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM APPL. 16729/2013(Delay) In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 293 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. + MAC. APP. 957/2013 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 04.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:1.2. Loss of Medical Expenses For loss of earning on account MAC. APP. No.957/2013 :3. 4. 5.6. of disability : Rs. 4,56,019/Pain and Suffering : Rs. 60,000/Conveyance & Special Diet : Rs. 40,000/Attendant Charges : Rs. 10,000/Loss of Amenities : Rs. 40,000/Total : Rs. 6,06,019/(Rs. Six lacs six...
Shyamal Prasad Das Vs. Anita Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order pronounced on : March 04, 2014 RC.REV. 298/2013 & C.M. No.12457/2013 SHYAMAL PRASAD DAS Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Anand Jha, Adv. versus ANITA VERMA Through ..... Respondent Mr.Rahul Rohtagi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has assailed the order dated 8th July, 2013 of the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner against eviction order dated 13th April, 2012 whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for the reason mainly that the same was not filed within the stipulated period prescribed under the Act.2. The respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in respect of a shop bearing No.1626, Dariba Kalan, Delhi (hereina...
M/S. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. Vs. Shri Hari Om Maheshwari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. 09.2013 Pronounced on:04. 03.2014 + C.M. APPL. 10879/2012 IN RFA342007 M/S. DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LTD. ..Appellant Through: Sh. Rajat Bhalla, Advocate with Sh. Arun Gupta, representative of the appellant in person. Versus SHRI HARI OM MAHESHWARI ..Respondent Through: Sh. Hari Om Maheshwari, respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This judgement disposes of an application preferred by the plaintiff/respondent, Hari Om Maheshwari, in appeal proceedings initiated by the unsuccessful defendant/appellant, Delhi Stock Exchange (hereinafter DSE) against an order and judgment of a learned Additional District Judge. The application seeks a direction to modify this Courts final order in the appeal, to the extent it required the applicant to furnish a bank guarantee for `7,00,000/-. RFA (OS) 34/2007 Page 1 2. The underlying disp...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »