Delhi Court April 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.
Shree Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir Karamchar Vs. Shree Adya Katy ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. 04.2014 + W.P.(C) 2235/2014 SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTI PEETH MANDIR KARAMCHARI WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners versus SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTI PEETH (MANDIR) TRUST & ORS ..... Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner : Mr Rishi Kesh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr C.M. Oberoi, Adv. for R- 1 to 3. Mr Shoaib Haider, Adv. for R-4. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a second round of litigation. This round of litigation has been initiated pursuant to a direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide its judgement dated 21.07.2009, passed in the petitioners own case. The said writ petition was numbered as: WP(C) No.4390/1998. The direction issued was, that the petitioners, should make a representation to respondent no.1 trust, within four weeks of the date of the judgement, which was, required to be considered by the governing body of the said ...
Government of Nct of Delhi Vs. Late Kabool Chand Maithal (Through Lrs) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.157/2012 24th April, 2014 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate. VERSUS LATE KABOOL CHAND MAITHAL (THROUGH LRS) AND ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Udit Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. H.L. Narula, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.16132/2012 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 43 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.157/2012 and C.M. No.16131/2012 (stay) 2(i) This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the judgment of the first appellate court dated 31.10.2011; by which the first appellate court in the appeal filed by...
Union of India Vs. Tirupati Texco Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.264/2011 24th April, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus TIRUPATI TEXCO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. B.S. Mathur, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. At the outset it is stated that there was a delay of 48 days in re- filing the appeal and therefore while issuing notice in the appeal, delay of 48 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned by allowing C.M. No.11020/2011. Counsel for the respondent contends that delay in re-filing the appeal ought not to have been condoned. I note that there is no application for recalling of the order dated 31.5.2011. Even assuming that there was such an application, yet, the delay of 48 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned inasmuch as delay of 48 days causes no real prejudice to the respondents and which period of 48 days is for removing objections ra...
Linde Ag, Linde Engineering Division and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 04.2014 W.P. (C) No.3914/2012 & CM No.8187/2012 LINDE AG, LINDE ENGINEERING DIVISION AND ANR. versus .....Petitioners DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. with Mr R.P. Garg, Mr V.S. Wahi, Mr Rupesh Jain & Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni. For the Respondent : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the ruling dated 20.03.2012 passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings (hereinafter referred to as the Authority). By the said ruling dated 20.03.2012, the Authority has disposed of the application (AAR No.962 of 2010) filed by the petitioner under section 245Q of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and held that the Consortium of th...
Mohd. Yusuf @ Chumma Vs. State (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :20. h MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :23. d APRIL, 2014 + CRL.A. 39/2014 & CRL.M.B.No.70/2014 MOHD. YUSUF @ CHUMMA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajender Chhabra, Advocate. versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 05.09.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.104/2013 arising out of FIR No.238/2012 PS Jahangirpuri by which he was convicted under Section 392 read with 394 IPC. By an order dated 12.09.2013, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 2,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 17.09.2012 at about 06.30 A.M. at Gali No.2, B-Block Park, Jahangirpuri, the appellant and his associates (not arrested) assaulted and robbed complainant Raj Dulari, aged 60 years of her purse co...
icon Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. No.257 of 2013 ICON BUILDCON PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate versus AGGARWAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr. Anand Chaudhari, Advocates WITH CRL.L.P. 258 of 2013 ICON BUILDCON PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate versus AGGARWAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr. Anand Chaudhari, Advocates WITH CRL.L.P. 259 of 2013 ICON BUILDCON PVT.LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate versus AGGARWAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr. Anand Chaudhari, Advocates WITH CRL.L.P. 260 of 2013 ICON BUILDCON PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate versus AGGARWAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr. Anand Chaudhari, Advocates WITH CRL.L.P. 261 of 2013 ICON BUILDCON PVT. LTD. Through: ..... ...
Richa Devi Vs. Ram Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.48/2014 23rd April, 2014 RICHA DEVI ......Appellant Through: Mr. P.K.Nayyar, Advocate. VERSUS RAM DASS ...... Respondent Through: 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 under Section 100 CPC impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 3.7.2004 and the first appellate court dated 5.10.2013; by which, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession and mesne profits with respect to the property bearing No.183, Tilak Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi was decreed.2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the respondent-plaintiff was that he was allotted this quarter being an industrial worker and at one stage since Page 1 of 4 he ceased to be an industrial worker, the department informed him that the allotment would be cancelled, and at which stage, the respondent-plaintiff requested that the prope...
Shikha Misra and anr Vs. S. Krishnamurthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d , April, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1854/2011 SHIKHA MISRA & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Ranjan and Mr. Joel, Advocates. Versus S. KRISHNAMURTHY Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Rashmi Verma and Ms. Swati Gupta, Advocates CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The following issues No.(ii) and (iii), of the issues framed on 27th March, 2014 in this suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, assigning or mortgaging or creating any third party rights in the property agreed to be sold, and ordered to be treated as preliminary issues are for adjudication:(ii) Even if the above issue were to be decided in favour of the plaintiffs, whether the document dated 19th April, 1992 constitutes a binding and enforceable Agreement to Sell of which specific per...
Anil Vs. State, Nct Govt. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t APRIL, 2014 DECIDED ON :23. d APRIL, 2014 + CRL.A. 361/2012 & CRL.M.B.No.343/2014 ANIL ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Baljeet Singh, Advocate. versus STATE, NCT GOVT. OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 07.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.47/2010 arising out of FIR No.170/2010 PS Ranjit Nagar by which he was held guilty under Sections 392/397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. By an order dated 26.09.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 1,000/- under Sections 392/397 IPC; RI for three years with fine ` 250/- each under Sections 25/27 Arms Act.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 01.09.2010 at about 08.10 P.M. near Gopal Dairy, Pandav Nagar, the appellant robbed complaina...
Vijay Shankar Goel Vs. Archaeological Survey of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
#8 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6738/2013 & CM APPL. 14615/2013 VIJAY SHANKAR GOEL Through ..... Petitioner Mr Asheesh Jain, Advocate versus ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Jayant Tripathi, CGSC for R-1. Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for R-2. Date of Decision:23. d April, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19th July, 2013 passed by the Monitoring Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. Petitioner also seeks de-sealing of property bearing No.38, Chhatha Bazaar, also known as Arcade Bazar, Red Fort, Delhi and the tin shed in front thereof.2. In pursuance to the no objection to the de-sealing of the shop in question by Archaeological Survey of India (for short ASI) as well as the Municipal Corporation of India (for short MCD), this Court vide order dated 11th December, 2013 directed the shop-portion of the premises of the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »