Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 17 of about 432 results (0.021 seconds)Sanjay Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 23, 2014 + W.P.(C) 14126/2004 SANJAY KUMAR Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Abhishek Nischal, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate with Mr.Saqib and Mr.Arjun Narayan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) 1. Petitioner was granted five days leave, and since he was granted time to proceed to his home town and return, the leave period was from April 02, 2001 till April 10, 2001. The petitioner was to join back on April 11, 2001. He joined back on June 12, 2001. The department treated the period interregnum April 01, 2001 to June 11, 2001 as unauthorized absence. What had happened was that an FIR No.43/2001 was registered at Police Station J.P.Kalan, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC, naming the petitioner, his mother and sister as accused. Petitioners wife Kavita died w...
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Singh Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) Nos.1143/2013 & CM APPL.2180/2013, 6667/2013 & CM APPL.14470/2013, 595/2013 & CM APPL.1133/2013, 4469/2013 & CM APPL.10325/2013, 6779/2013 & CM APPL.14706/2013, 2364/2014 & CM APPL.4988/2014, 2365/2014 & CM APPL.4989/2014 2366/2014 & CM APPL.4990/2014 , 2369/2014 & CM APPL.4994/2014, 2370/2014 & CM APPL.4995/2014, 2371/2014 & CM APPL.4996/2014, 2372/2014 & CM APPL.4997/2014 , 2373/2014 & CM APPL.4998/2014, 2376/2014 & CM APPL.5002/2014, 2378/2014 & CM APPL.5003/2014, 2379/2014 & CM APPL.5004/2014, 2392/2014 & CM APPL.5027/2014, 2397/2014 & CM APPL.5030/2014, & 2398/2014 & CM APPL.5031/2014 Decided on :23. 04.2014 IN THE MATTERS OF + W.P.(C) 1143/2013 and CM APPL. 2180/2013 MAHINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Advocates + W.P.(C) 595/2013 and CM APPL. 1133/2013 SUKHDEV ..... Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision :23. 04.2013 + CS(OS) 122/2011 CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Bitika Sharma and Ms.Anusuya Nigam, Advs. versus MEDIPOL PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark PANTODAC, passing off, dilusion, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. against the defendants.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 were issued on 01.02.2011 and on the same day an ex parte ad interim injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff whereby defendant no.1 was restrained from using the trademark PANDOPOL or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark PANTODAC. Written statement was filed by the defendants on 07.05.2011. Admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Satpal Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia University and ors
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of judgement:23. 04.2014 + W.P.(C) 4068/2013 SATPAL ..... Petitioner versus JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Ms Indrani Ghosh, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms Jaya Goyal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a writ petition whereby challenge is laid to the following: (a) Orders dated 19/21.03.2013 and 20.05.2013; (b) Minutes of meeting dated 25.02.2013 and 26.04.2013 of the Executive Council (in short EC), i.e., respondent no.3; and (c) Inquiry report dated 14.11.2012.2. The challenge to the aforesaid orders arises in the background of the following brief facts which, according to me, are relevant for dealing with the issue at hand. 2.1 The petitioner was appointed, in February, 1996, in the sanitation department of respondent no.1 university as a safai karamchari. 2.2 On 28.12.2011, the petitioner, was served ...
Tag this Judgment!Kabir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: April 16, 2014 Decision on: April 22, 2014 CRL.A. No.22 of 2014 & CRL.M. (BAIL) No.34 of 2014 KABIR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in JC. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP for State with SI Vijender Singh from PS: Ranhola. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2204.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned dated 28 th September 2013 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge (West), Delhi in Sessions Case No.38 of 2012 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 30 th September 2013 sentencing him to simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of four years.2. The case of the prosecution was that Mr. Govind Verma (PW-4), 24, Gali No.5, Deep Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. PW-4 plied a rickshaw. The Appellant Kabir was a friend of PW-4. The Appellant used to work in a hotel and also live with PW-4 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu Babu Rohatgi Vs. Raj Kumar Rohatgi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order Pronounced on: April 22, 2014 I.A. No.6287/2011 in CS(OS) No.944/2011 KALLU BABU ROHATGI Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.N.S.Negi, Adv. versus RAJ KUMAR ROHATGI & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.S.D.Kushwaha, Adv. for D-1. Mr.K.K.Rohatgi, Adv. for D-2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff, Sh.Kallu Babu Rohatgi, filed the suit for partition in respect of the property bearing No.A-164, Hari Nagar, Ghanta Ghar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property) against the six defendants, namely, Raj Kumar Rohatgi, Vinod Kumar Rohatgi, Parmod Kumar Rohatgi, Subhash Chand Rohatgi, Manju Rani Rohatgi and Rekha Rohatgi.2. By order dated 25th April, 2011, injunction order was passed restraining all parties to the suit from creating any third party right, title, possession and construction in respect of the suit property. The matter was also referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation ...
Tag this Judgment!Zakir @ Nasir Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:22. 04.2014 + CRL.A. 1254/2013 ISRAEL @ AJAY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI + Through: CRL.A. 1149/2013 OM SHIV @ KALLU ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State CRL.A. 1151/2013 ZAKIR @ NASIR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Habibur Rahman, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 12.07.2008, on receipt of information regarding firing at Mahila Mandal, SI Hukum Singh reached Shop No.E-I/1, Madangir, New Delhi, where a crowd was found having gathered. On enquiry, it came to be known that some persons, who had come on two motorcycles, had shot Pawan Kumar and Naresh Kumar, who had been taken to Batra Hospital in injured co...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Developmen Vs. Omwati and or ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:22. 04.2014 LPA4092013 DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Appellant versus OMWATI & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Renuka Arora. For the Respondents : Mr Arvind Kumar and Mr Vikas Kumar for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr Nawal Kishore Jha, for respondent No.7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WP(C) No.4593/2012 directing the appellant to handover possession of the plot in issue to the respondent subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities.2. Relevant facts for effective adjudication of the present appeal are contained in the succeeding paragraphs.3. The late husband of respondent No.1 was running an industrial unit for manufacture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Solanki Vs. Dada Dev Prabhandhak Sabha (Barah Gaon) Palam
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.105/2014& CM No.6873/2014 (stay) 22nd April, 2014 ......Appellant Mr. Prabhat Kaushik and Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocates. % SANTOSH SOLANKI Through: VERSUS DADA DEV PRABHANDHAK SABHA (BARAH GAON) PALAM ...... Respondent Through: 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 impugns the judgment of the first appellate court dated 18.12.2013 by which the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The first appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial court dated 11.7.2013 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.2. The trial court has, by a very thorough and exhaustive judgment held that the three requirements for decreeing the suit for possession exists in the present case because surely and firstly the relationship of landlord and...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Brij Lal and Sons Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.435/2011 % 22nd April, 2014 M/S. BRIJ LAL & SONS Through: ..... Appellant None. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the court below dated 21.5.2011 by which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act against the Award of the arbitrator dated 23.10.2006 were dismissed. The appellant/contractor was given the contract of repairing of approach road around Fish Market Complex Phase-I in Trans-Yamuna Area in Delhi and with respect to which disputes arose resulting in arbitration proceedings.2. The arbitrator by the Award dated 23.10.2006 dismissed the claim Nos.1,2 and partly allowed claim No.3. Appellant filed o...
Tag this Judgment!