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.
Mukesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h March, 2014 + CRL.A. 453/1999 MUKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Mukesh Kumar has filed this appeal against the judgment and order on sentence dated 19th August, 1999 and 20th August, 1999 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No.119/98 arising out of FIR No.386/1991, PS Gokalpuri whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.2. The case of prosecution, in brief is that deceased Radha, daughter of Prakash Chand, resident of J-212, Shakarpur, Delhi was married ...
National Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Harbans Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:28. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 394/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. Versus HARBANS SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 11.02.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.19,08,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.2. Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Ld. Tribunal wrongly computed the compensation towards future loss of income and awarded high compensation under this head. She has relied upon a case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC343 wherein it is held as under:Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the act...
Mrs. Monica Malik Vs. Mr. Amit Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P(C) No.26/2014 28th March, 2014 % MRS. MONICA MALIK Through: ......Petitioner Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate. VERSUS MR. AMIT MALIK ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. There is no merit in the petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for various reasons inasmuch as neither pleadings of the cases which are proposed to be transferred have been filed, and nor the common questions of law and fact in the two cases have been stated. More importantly, the basic ground seeking transfer under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is only the convenience of a party i.e petitioner herein.2. Merely because now there are more than one district courts in Delhi, and that one of the district courts is nearer than other district court, the same is not a ground for invoking or exercising powers under Section 24 CPC. If the...
Govind Vashisth Vs. Jagan Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P(C) No.27/2014 28th March, 2014 % GOVIND VASHISTH Through: ......Petitioner Petitioner in person. VERSUS JAGAN DEVI AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.5750/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + TR.P. (C) No.27/2014 2. This petition is a petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Although consolidation and transfer of three cases are sought, neither are pleadings of both parties of the three cases which are prayed to be consolidated filed nor it is stated in the petition as to what are the common questions of law and facts and hence the requirement of consolidation. Also, it is not known what are the stages of the respective cases for deciding as to whether or not discretionary jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC should or should not be exercised.3....
Sh. Sukhbir Singh Vs. Mr. Sh. Roop Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.84/2014 28th March, 2014 SH. SUKHBIR SINGH Through: ...... Appellant Mr. M.K.Singh, Advocate. VERSUS MR. SH. ROOP CHAND & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment of the first appellate court dated 19.12.2013 by which the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court dated 17.9.2012. By the impugned judgments of the courts below, two suits of the appellant-plaintiff being suit nos. 18/09/06 and 312/2008 were dismissed. Dispute between the parties, appellant/plaintiff & respondent nos.2 & 3 herein (defendants in suit no.18/2009/2006), pertain to an area of 5 biswas i.e about 250 sq. yds forming part of K.No.49/41, Village Rani Khera, Delhi. 2(i) The case as put forth by the appellant-plaintiff was th...
Suraj Bhan, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
The applicant in the instant OA seeks the following relief:-(i). That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not counting the period from 19.11.1968 to 14.11.1981 as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits is totally illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to count this period as a qualifying service with all the consequential benefits, i.e., for the purpose of revision of pensionary benefits, granting post retirement passes, granting the benefits of ACP/MACP scheme benefits etc.2. The applicant was initially appointed in the North- Western Railway as a casual labour on 19.11.1968 and worked as such in different spells until 14.11.1981. He was granted temporary status with effect from 15.11.1981. He was regularized with effect from 02.11.1983. The applicant retired from service on 31.01.2009 from the post of Gangman.3...
Piara Singh Kangra (Hp) Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
The applicant in the instant OA seeks the following reliefs:-(i). That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to count entire temporary status as a qualifying service for granting retirement benefits and count half of non temporary status period (casual period prior to granting temporary status) as a qualifying service for granting retirement benefits by way of extending the benefits of Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, AP and Another Vs. Shaik Abdul Khader (WP No.10837 of 2001) decided on 23.06.2003 and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to re-calculate all the retirement benefits of the applicant and grant the difference of amounts to the applicant immediately with interest at the rate of 18% PA.(ii). That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to re-calculate the qualifying service o...
Brij Lal, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Departme ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A).This OA has been filed for grant of promotion to thePost of Under Secretary from 01.07.2003 as per the Select List of that year along with increments and consequential retrial benefits. The reliefs sought in the OA are as under:-i. direct the respondents to grant notional promotion to the applicant from the date of inclusion in the Select List for the year 2003 along with increments and consequential post-retirement benefits including dues accruing there from.ii. Pass any other Order(s) which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.2. According to the facts, stated in the OA, the applicant joined as LDC on 20.03.1967 and later on qualified the Upper Division Grade Limited Departmental Competitive examination held in 1972 and joined as UDC on 01.10.1973. He was thereafter promoted as Assistant and subsequently as Section Officer on 01.02.1993. He superannuated on 31.03.2005 without getting promotion of the n...
Kuntesh, Kishan and Another Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Depa ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J).In this Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following relief:(i). quash and set aside the communication dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure A-1); consider the case of the applicant No.2 for compassionate appointment with a view to provide immediate assistance to the family of deceased employee;May also pass any further order (s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: Applicant no.1 Smt. Kuntesh is the widow, and applicant no.2 Shri Mohit Kumar is the son, of Shri Ram Kishan, the deceased casual employee with temporary status. Shri Ram Kishan was initially engaged by respondent no.2 on casual basis in the year 1988 and was conferred temporary status with effect from 1.12.1993, vide office order dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure A-5), in accordance with the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993 (Annexure A-4). Th...
Jagdish Kohli Vs. the State of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment :27.03.2014. CRL.M.C. 654/2014 JAGDISH KOHLI Through versus ..... Petitioner Mr. R.S. Juneja, Adv. THE STATE OF DELHI & ORS Through ..... Respondents Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This petition seeks quashing of an FIR which has been registered under Sections 376/493 of the IPC at PS Preet Vihar. 2 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has been informed that in view of the judgment of Apex Court in (2012) 10 SCC303Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another and keeping in view the averments made in the petition, this Court is not inclined to pass any order for quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel however insists in arguing the petition and states that he wants an order to be passed on merits. He has placed reliance upon the dicta of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) submission being that to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »