Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 24 of about 432 results (0.028 seconds)Chit Narayan Yadav and anr Vs. Orix Auto and Business Solutions Ltd an ...
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP.No.307/2012 CHIT NARAYAN YADAV & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate. Versus ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 17.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation as under: Loss of dependency Loss of Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Total : : : : Rs. 2,91,480/Rs. 2,500/Rs. 2,500/Rs.2,96,480/- Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was also awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr.O.P.Mannie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :02.04.2014. Judgment delivered on :17.04.2014 CRL.A. 233/2006 PANKAJ KUMAR Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Mr. S.C. Bhuttan and Mr. Sandeep Bhutani, Advs. versus STATE Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CRL.A. 244/2006 GULSHAN KHAN Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Mr.I.A. Alvi and Mohd. Altaf, Advs. versus STATE Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CRL.A. 245/2006 BABBU ALVI Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Mr.I.A. Alvi and Mohd. Altaf, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CRL.A. 261/2006 KAMALDEEP NARULA ..... Appellant Through Appellant with his counsel Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran Khan, Advs. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 There are four appellants before this Court. Appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Vibhuti Jauhari Deputy Director (Architecture), New Delhi and Another ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The applicant is before us challenging the order dated 19.03.2013, whereby the respondents have rejected her request for voluntary retirement on the ground that she has not completed the age of 50 years as stipulated in FR 56 (k) and that she has not completed 20 years of qualifying service, which is the requirement as per Rule-48 A of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Her grouse is that the stand now taken by the respondents is contrary to the earlier letter dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure A-3) by which the similar request of the applicant had earlier been rejected, stating that she had not completed 10 years of minimum qualifying service for grant of voluntary retirement. The applicant has assailed the stand of the respondents to be contrary to the Honble Delhi High Courts judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Shri Kundan and Ors. in WP (C) No.4311/2003, judgment dated 05.04.2010, a copy of which she has annexed as Annexure A-6. She has submitted that in this ju...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Suneal Mangal Vs. M/S Prime Maxi Mall Management and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 3453/2012 % Judgment dated 17.04.2014 SHRI SUNEAL MANGAL ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Gaurav Mitra, Ms.Swati and Ms.Samreen, Advocates versus M/S PRIME MAXI MALL MANAGEMENT & ANR..... Defendant Through: Mr.B.B. Gupta and Mr.Udyan Srivastava, Advocates for defendant no.1 Mr.Mukta Kapoor, Advocate for D=2 Mr.Aman Nandrajog, Advocate for the proposed defendant no.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 11566/2013 1. This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of one of the directors of the defendant no.1, as a party to the present suit.2. The foundation which has been laid in this application for impleading one of the directors as a party to the suit is that the agreement dated 4.5.2005 was signed by the proposed defendant as a director of defendant no.1 and therefore, he would be a necessary party and secondly that the plaintiff has placed some documents on ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: April 04, 2014 Decision on: April 16, 2014 CRL.A. No.256 of 2008 KANWAR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Sima Gulati, Ms. Ridhima Gulati & Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advocates. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1604.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21 st February 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No.204/07 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 22nd February 2008, whereby the Appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs. 6,000, and in default, to undergo RI for a period of nine months for the off...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Mohammad @ Shera Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : APRIL16 2014 + CRL.A. 209/2011 SHER MOHAMMAD @ SHERA ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Kunal Aurora counsel for Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant-Sher Mohammad @ Shera has preferred the present appeal to challenge the correctness of a judgment dated 20.05.2010 in Sessions Case No.1033/09 arising out of FIR No.533/05 registered at police station Keshav Puram. By an order dated 04.06.2010, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine `5,000/- under Section 363 IPC; and RI for ten years with fine `10,000/under Section 364-A IPC.2. Allegations against the appellant, as set up in the charge- sheet, were that on 01.11.2005 he kidnapped Sanskar @ Shishu aged about four years, son of his employer Pramod Kumar Goyal, for ransom. Daily Dairy (DD) No.30 was recorded when missing person report w...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Global Infrastructure Technologies Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank L ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:16. h April, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 4862/2013 M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Ms. Geeta Sharma, Ms. Vinita Sasidharan and Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates. versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as AIFR) passed on 12.06.2013 as also the order passed by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR) passed on 04.10.2010. The order passed by the AIFR is in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the BIFR.2. The brief facts are that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Kumar Verma Vs. Vijay Tandon and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. h April, 2014. % + CS(OS) 1743/2008 ASHWINI KUMAR VERMA ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Anjana Prabhakar, Advocate. Versus VIJAY TANDON & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Manav Gupta & Ms. Esha Dutta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW I.A. No.6818/2014 (of defendants u/O14R-5 CPC) 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for specific performance of an oral Agreement to Sell by the defendants of sale of property No.39, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.35 lakhs out of which the plaintiff claims to have paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as token money (bayana).2. Since the suit was not accompanied with any application for interim relief, the same was listed before the Joint Registrar and summons of the suit were issued to the defendants who filed written statement thereto and to which a replication was filed by the plaintiff.3. On the pleadings of the pa...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Kailash Nath Aggarwal and ors
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 377/2011 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. versus KAILASH NATH AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R1. Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv. for R7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, appellant / Insurance Company has assailed the award dated 03.02.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the respondent No.1 / injured as under:1. 2. 3.4.5. Non-pecuniary damages Pain and suffering Loss of amenities Damages due to amputation of leg and disfigurement Loss of expectation of life Future medical expenses on Prosthesis Total MAC. Appeal No.377/2011 : : Rs.1,00,000/Rs.1,50,000/- : : Rs.50,000/Rs.50,000/- : : Rs.50,000 1.2. 3.4.5. Compensation Loss of Prosthesis Loss of income Special Diet Conveyance Non pecuniary as above Total : : : : : : Rs.1,...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Chand Aggarwal Vs. Lekh Raj
Court: Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: April 16, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.291/2012 & C.M. No.11491/2012 PURAN CHAND AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Anil Sharma, Adv. versus LEKH RAJ Through ..... Respondent Ms.Anju Lal, Adv. with Ms.Shalu Lal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has assailed the eviction order dated 23rd January, 2012, passed by Additional Rent Controller-01, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of two shops situated in the suit property bearing Khasra No.186/22, Municipal No.780A, Banke Bihari Mandir Road, Scooter Market, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi-110051 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shops). The tenanted shops were let out to the petitioner for last many years on a mon...
Tag this Judgment!