Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 16 of about 432 results (0.021 seconds)Shaival Sahay Vs. Govind Verma and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d April, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1412/2012 SHAIVAL SAHAY Through: ..... Plaintiff Ms. Malavika Rajkotia and Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocates. Versus GOVIND VERMA & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Mr. Rajesh Chhetri and Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Advocates. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.IA No.1232/2013 (of the defendants for leave to defend).1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of Rs.1,47,00,000/- jointly and severally from the six defendants, pleading:(i) that the defendants are members of a joint Hindu family and which family controls and manages M/s. Infragro Industries Ltd.; (ii) that the plaintiff from time to time advanced loan for the business of the said Company; (iii) that the defendants upon being unable to return the said loan agreed that 5593 sq. mtrs (6420 sq. yds.) of land owned by the defendants at Rahe Murtaza Road, Civil Lines Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjeet Malik Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :17.04.2014. Judgment delivered on :23.04.2014 CRL.A. No.670/2002 & Crl. M.A. No.2787/2003 RANJEET MALIK ..... Appellant Through Appellant with his counsel Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 22.07.2002 & 31.07.2002 respectively wherein he has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 year. Nominal roll of the appellant has been called. It shows that as on the date when he had been granted bail, he had suffered incarceration for 5 years 8 months and 28 days. 2 At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for leniency in sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Neksi Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % + FAO Nos. 130/2012 &conn. 23rd April, 2014 FAO1302012 + FAO1312012 + FAO1322012 NEKSI DEVI & ORS. .... Appellants RADHEY SHYAM .... Appellant RAVI .... Appellant Through Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. These are three connected appeals. Three connected claim petitions were dismissed by the Tribunal. Three claim petitions were filed because with respect to the three persons there was a common accident. Out of the three persons two persons died, namely Sanjay and Rohit and whose legal heirs have filed appeals being FAO No.130/2012 and FAO No.131/2012. Third person, namely, Ravi did not die in the accident unlike Sanjay and Rohit but he suffered grievous injuries including fracture of his leg and he has filed the appeal being FAO No.132/2012.2. There is strong evidence on...
Tag this Judgment!Brijesh Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : April 15, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : April 23, 2014 + WP(C)No.1505/2003 BRIJESH KUMAR SHUKLA .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Anil Gautam, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sachin Dutta, Advocate and Mr.Vineet Tayal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. On April 04, 1987 the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Border Security Force. Thereafter, on December 29, 1993 the petitioner was sent on deputation to Central Bureau of Investigation.2. The case set by the department against the petitioner is that in the month of September, 1995 an information was received at the Vigilance Department of the Railway Board that by impersonating himself as an official of the Vigilance Department of Railway Board a person is frequently managing to travel to and fro between New Delhi and Ahmadabad in Magadh Express o...
Tag this Judgment!Unistraw Holdings Pte Ltd. Vs. NitIn Agarwal and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d April, 2014. % + CS(OS) 2293/2013 UNISTRAW HOLDINGS PTE LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Nidhi Minocha, Adv. Versus NITIN AGARWAL & ANR Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 ..... Defendants The plaintiff has instituted this suit for: (i) permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 Universal Corporation Limited of which the defendant No.1 is the Director from making, selling, distributing, advertising, importing, exporting, offering for sale or dealing in any product that infringes the subject matter of the registered patent No.245614; (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in any product that infringes the plaintiffs design Nos.205672 & 212155; (iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in any product insert/carton/label that infringes the trade dress of the plaintiff in such carton/label/product insert; (iv) delivery of all infringing mat...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 04.2014 CO. A(SB) 5/2014 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Jaswinder Singh. For the Respondent : Mr Mayank Goel for Official Liquidator. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Official Liquidator whereby the Official Liquidator has admitted the debt of `12,55,69,834/- as being secured by a second charge over the immovable assets of the company. The appellant is aggrieved that the Official Liquidator has not admitted the debt of `104 lakhs, owed on account of funded interest, as a secured debt.2. The Official Liquidator had, by its letter dated 18.03.2013, admitted the claim of the appellant for a sum of `13,75,69,834/- (`1,20,00,000 as Secured debt and `12,55,69,834/- as Unsecured debt). T...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Chanderkant and Co Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 04.2014 FAO(OS) 189/2014 M/S CHANDERKANT & CO .... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr R. Rajappan : None CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM No.6826/2014 The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO(O)S1892014 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by a learned single Judge in OMP No.446/2013 which was a petition filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking enlargement of time for the making of the award by the sole arbitrator.2. The learned single Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the appellant / petitioner was guilty of gross delay and negligence inasmuch as the reference was made in 1992 and the appellant / petitioner had also filed...
Tag this Judgment!Hindalco Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:23. 04.2014 W.P.(C) 1175/1994 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. ..... Petitioners versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, MIRZAPUR AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Parag P.Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Bhargava, Ms Vanita Bhargava, Mr Shahid Rizvi, Mr Ankur Khandelwal and Mr Arunabh Ganguly. For the Respondents : Mr Satish Kumar for respondent No.2. Ms Meera Bhatia for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as being ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. There is also a prayer for quashing the demand dated 16.02.1994 which has been raised by the Central Excise Department on the petitioner.2. At the outset, ...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Delhi and ors. Vs. Rahul Kumar Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on April 23, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6910/2013 GOVT. OF DELHI AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate versus RAHUL KUMAR SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 12, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, in short), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application (OA) No.2698/2012, whereby the OA filed by the respondent herein, inter alia, seeking ad-hoc promotion on out of turn basis to the post of Inspector under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 from the date when SI Dharmender Kumar was allowed the same.2. Some of the facts, which are relevant to decide the issue which falls for our consideration in this writ petition are, that the respondent was appointed as Inspector (Exec...
Tag this Judgment!J and G Electronics (P) Ltd Vs. Jakson Engineers Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2275/2011 Decided on :23.04.2014 J & G ELECTRONICS (P) LTD Through ..... Plaintiff Ms.Misha Rohtagi, Adv. versus JAKSON ENGINEERS LTD Through ..... Defendant Mr. Siddharth S. Dev, Adv. with Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) IA No.6130/2013 ( Order 9 Rule 7 CPC) 1. This is an order for dismissal of the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 29,58,186/- against the defendant company. Summons were ordered to be issued to the defendant on 28.11.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 23.02.2012. On 23.02.2012 the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on the basis of the service report of refusal received on the summons. The plaintiff was permitted to file ex parte evidence by way of affidavit.3. The defendant has filed th...
Tag this Judgment!