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.
Jeevan Dass Vs. Anil Sharma
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...
Deepak Khosla Vs. Honble High Court of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. 10.2013 Pronounced on:04. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 6148/2013, C.M. APPL. 13533/2013, 13534/2013, 13535/2013, 13536/2013, 13537/2013 & 13538/2013 DEEPAK KHOSLA ..Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. Versus HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present petition presents several questions concerning the authority of Courts to regulate the manner in which litigation is conducted. Broadly, the petitioner raises the following seven questions: a) Whether a Court has the power (the jurisdiction) to injunct a party from filing any kind of application?. b) Whether a Court has the power (the jurisdiction) to injunct a party from filing an application before a coordinate Court. In parallel: when the same matter being heard by learned Single Judge X is now required to be placed before a different learned...
Shamshad Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :3. d MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :4. h MARCH, 2014 + CRL.A. 331/2011 SHAMSHAD ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Himal Akhtar, Advocate. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. AND + CRL.A. 724/2011 & CRL.M.B. 72/2014 SHAKEEL AHMAD Through : ..... Appellant None. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Shaqueel @ Mulla, Shamshad, Imran and Bhuran were arrested in case FIR No.580/2004 PS Sarai Rohilla and sent for trial alleging that on 22.10.2004 at 06.30 P.M. they in furtherance of common intention with their associate Rashid (Proclaimed Offender) committed dacoity at house No.A-175, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi and deprived the complainant Kamlesh of ` 2.5 lacs, gold bangles, gold rings and gold chain. Daily Diary (DD) No.20 A (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded at PS Sarai Rohilla on 22.10.2004 at 19.32 hours on getting information of the dacoity. ...
Sanjeev Mittal Vs. M/S Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h March, 2014. + CS(OS) 2638/2013 & IA No.20999/2013 (u/O39R-1&2) & IA No.3945/2014 (u/O1R-10) & IA No.3946/2014 (u/O39R-1&2) SANJEEV MITTAL Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Rajat Wadhwa with Ms. Chiral Dugar, Ms. Sonakshi Awasthi and Mr. Honey Jain, Advs. Versus M/S TIRUPATI INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ANR ........ Defendants Through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja with Mr. Asit Tewari, Advs. for D-1&2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction, pleading: (i) that the defendant No.1 Company of which the defendant No.2 Mr. Adarsh Mohan is the Director, is the owner of Shopping Mall/Complex D Mall at Plot No.D, District Centre, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063; (ii) that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of running liquor shop in and around Delhi and had approached the defendants for taking two showrooms/shops on the ground floor of the said Mall on lease ...
Neelam Devi and ors. Vs. Bikramjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.972/2012 NEELAM DEVI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.O.P. Mannie and Mr. Manish Maini, Advocates. Versus BIKRAMJEET SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ...... Respondents Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 02.05.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as under:1.2. 3.4.5. Loss of dependency (5146X15X12) Loss of Love and affection For funeral expenses Loss of estate Loss of Consortium =Rs.9,26,280/=Rs. 25,000/=Rs. 10,000/=Rs. 10,000/=Rs. 10,000/_____________ Total =Rs.9,81,280/(Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand two hundred and eight only) Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amoun...
Kancho Devi Vs. Saurabh Srivastava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on : March 04, 2014 + RC.REV. 341/2012 & C.M. No.12585/2012 KANCHO DEVI Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Deepali Gupta, Adv. versus SAURABH SRIVASTAVA Through ..... Respondent Mr.K.K.Srivastava, 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 eviction order dated 29th March, 2012 of the learned Rent Controller 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 room on the ground floor of the property bearing No.1058, Gandhi Gali, Fathepuri, Delhi-6 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises). As the ...
New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Lakhan Singh Bisht and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 696/2010 and CM APPL. 18809/2010(Stay) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr. Kanwal Choudhary, Adv. Versus LAKHAN SINGH BISHT & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP. 696/2010 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 02.08.2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 6,75,392/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing the petition, i.e., 29.01.2005 till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC was issued.2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking exoneration from the liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident, despite, Ld. Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay compensation with right to recover from the owner of the offendi...
Amco Batteries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h March, 2014 % + ST.APPL. 35/2013 AMCO BATTERIES LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr Virag Tiwari, Mr Rajesh Jain and Mr K J Bhat, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent Through Ms Chandni Mehta, Adv. for Ms Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) The following substantial question of law was made out at the stage of admission:Whether the Objection Hearing Authority could have directed imposition of interest under Section 74(7) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004?.2. The petitioners grievance is regarding the objection to the order of the Commissioner under section 74(7) that even though its objection was accepted substantially yet in the operative directions the Objection Hearing Authority (hereinafter called as OHA) under sections 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter called the Act) was accepted. Yet in t...
Kailash Chand Vs. Defence Service Officers Institute
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.174/2012 & CM No.18546/2012 4th March, 2014 ......Appellant % KAILASH CHAND Through: None. VERSUS DEFENCE SERVICE OFFICERS INSTITUTE ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Dubey, Adv. 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 7.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated 29.9.2012; which have dismissed the suit filed by the appellantplaintiff for injunction with respect to the premises being shop no.4, Defence Services Officers Institute (DSOI) Complex/DSOI Staff Quarters, Delhi.2. The case of the respondent-defendant was that the appellant was a licensee and a licence deed was executed between the parties. The licence deed has been admitted by the appellant and proved on record as Ex.PW1/D3. Once with open eyes appellant entered into a licence deed and...
Maharaj Singh Vs. Satbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order pronounced on: March 04, 2014 RC. Rev. No.588/2012 & C.M. No.20484/2012 MAHARAJ SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.K.P.Mavi, Adv. with Mr.B.P.Mishra, Adv. versus SATBIR SINGH Through ..... Respondent Mr.S.P. Pandey, 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 19th October, 2012 whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for the reason that the same was not filed within the stipulated period prescribed under the Act.2. The respondent had filed an eviction petition, being E-81/2012, North East Karkarduma Courts, Delhi, against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with regard to tenanted premises, double shutter shop on ground floor bearing No.1226-E, Ground Floor, Khasra No.396, 100 Foota Road, Babarp...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »