Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 27 of about 432 results (0.010 seconds)Tejpal Vs. Deepak and ors
Court: Delhi
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP.No.1113/2011 TEJPAL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr. Iqbal A. Rahmani, Advocate. Versus DEEPAK & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gaur, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 01.09.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.2,76,816/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount for the injuries received by the appellant in the accident which took place on 06.03.2005.2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation, as noted above.3. Mr.Iqbal A. Rahmani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has proved that he was working with PW2, Riassat, and was earning Rs.5,00...
Tag this Judgment!Deutsche Trustee Company Ltd. Vs. Tulip Telecom Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:20. h March, 2014 Date of decision:16. h April, 2014 % + CO. APPL. Nos. 1529/2013 & 1688/2013 IN CO. PET. 329/2013 DEUTSCHE TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. L.K. Bhushan and Mr. Anirudh Arunkumar, Advocates. versus TULIP TELECOM LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr C A Sundaram, Sr. Adv. with Ms Diya Kapur, Mr. Arjun Singh Puri with Ms. Tejaswi Shetty and Ms. Himani Katoch, Advocates. Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Devmani Bansal, Advocate for ICICI Bank. Mr. Darpan Wadhwa with Ms. Roshni Namboodiry, Advocates for workmen. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR R. V. EASWAR, J.:1. M/s Tulip Telecom Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TTL or the respondent-company) is a company incorporated in India. It issued an offering circular for foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCBs) for USD150million, to be redeemed on maturity at 144.56% of the principal amount. A trust deed was entered int...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sunita and ors
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1101/2011 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. Versus SUNITA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, appellant / Insurance Company has assailed the award dated 16.08.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.11,59,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased Ved Prakash died at the age of 41 years. He was working as a labourer and the Ld. Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He further submits that keeping the age of the deceased into view, Ld. Tribunal ought to have added 30% in t...
Tag this Judgment!Master Manoj Vs. Sh. Bhuvnesh Gupta @ Bhanu and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: April 16, 2014 + CS(OS) 113/2008 & I.A. No.5445/2010 MASTER MANOJ Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.J.S.Bakshi, Adv. with Ms.Sunita Tiwari, Adv. versus SH. BHUVNESH GUPTA @ BHANU & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Puneet Mittal, Adv. with Mr.Nitin Sharma, Mr.Ankit Goel & Mr.Ankur Aggarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of IA No.5445/2010 filed by the plaintiff seeking directions from this court against the defendants calling upon them to provide the DNA test as per the prayers made in the application.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, claiming the position over the properties of deceased Shri Surender Gupta as being one of the legal heir of Late Shri Surender Gupta.3. (i) Brief facts of the case are as under:The plaintiff is a minor child, therefore, the present suit...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Sharma Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :03.4.2014 Judgment delivered on :16. 4.2014 CRL.A. 79/2003 MEENA SHARMA Through ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey and Mr.Anuj Pal, Advocates. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through + Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. CRL.A. 237/2003 RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Through ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey and Mr. Anuj Pal, Advocates. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 There are two appellants before this Court. They are husband and wife. Appellant Rajinder Kumar Sharma has been convicted by the Session Judge for the offence under Sections 376/325/342 of the IPC whereas appellant Meena Sharma has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109 of the IPC as also for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC. Appellant Rajinder Kumar Sharma has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chand Constable in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Up. Vs. Govt. of Nct of De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, filed the present OA questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A1) and the Summary of Allegations dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A2). 2. The charge leveled against the applicant reads as under: It is alleged against Ct. Satish Chand, No.6234/DAP(PIS No.28892790) that on 19.06.2013, he along with Ct. Parmanand, No.1659/DAP was deployed on patrolling duty outside PHQ on the pavement from main gate to exit gate (X-17) and they were provided with WT sets. On that day, Inspector Ramesh Chander as routine, checked the staff detailed on duty at the various points of PHQ Guard and when at about 4 PM the Inspector noticed a motor-cycle was unauthorizedly parked at the pavement, he made search for the deployed staff who were found from their duty point. He called both the Constables through HC Kanwar Singh on W.T. sets and they were found coming from Exit Gate of PHQ. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Verma, New Delhi Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, an UDC and working in Tihar Jail, was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 10.01.2009, vide Order dated 21.01.2009, as he was detained in custody on 10.01.2009 at 6 P.M. and released on bail on 15.01.2009 at 7.00 PM i.e., for a period of exceeding 48 hours, in connection with FIR No.486/2007 dated 13.09.2007 registered under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/204 IPC with P.S., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. His suspension was reviewed on 02.04.2009 and extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 02.04.2009, vide Order dated 09.04.2009. Again the suspension of the applicant was reviewed on 24.06.2009 and extended for another period of 90 days w.e.f. 24.06.2009, vide order dated 30.06.2009. Further, the suspension of the applicant was once again reviewed on 11.09.2009 and was extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 21.09.2009. 2. The respondents after the Suspension Review Committee reviewed the suspension of the applicant, extended the suspe...
Tag this Judgment!Shivendra Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of P ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dalip Singh, J. 1. The aforesaid Original Application came to be registered before this Tribunal, after the Writ Petition No.7286/2008 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by way of PIL, came to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, vide order dtd. 8th January, 2014. Vide order dtd. 07th March, 2014 notices were ordered to be issued to the parties. However, on the next date i.e. on 28.03.2014, despite service, none has appeared for the Applicant as well as for the Respondent No. 8 against whom the Writ was sought for restraining the Respondent No.8 from establishing and operating the petrol pump at the site in question which was alleged to be in the green belt. On 28th March, 2014 the case was adjourned to 16th April, 2014 in the interest of justice to enable the parties to appear and make their submissions. 2. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent No. 8 to whom the letter of intent was given by the India...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabh Mathur Working as Director (Works), Delhi Vs. Lt. Gen. J.S. Sik ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The petitioner of this Contempt Petition has alleged act of gross disobedience and deliberate flouting of the interim order passed in his OA on 10.03.2014, and has prayed for initiation of proceedings for civil contempt against the respondents/alleged contemnors. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, orders were reserved at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner is a responsible civil servant in the grade of Superintending Engineer with Military Engineering Service, and had been issued orders of his transfer to Kapurthala on 03.01.2014, which is Annexure A-1 in his OA. He represented against such transfer and his representation was rejected on 26.02.2014, after which he filed the said OA on 04.03.2014. The Bench which heard the OA had passed the following interim orders on 10.03.2014 at the admission stage itself:- It is brought to our notice that the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant in this regard by way o...
Tag this Judgment!Ronjon Lahiri, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary (Tou ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, an Assistant Director General, Ministry of Tourism, was placed under suspension vide Order dated 21.11.2012, with immediate effect, on the ground that a disciplinary proceedings is contemplated/pending against him. The Suspension Review Committee of the respondents reviewed the suspension of the applicant on 08.02.2013 and extended the period of suspension of the applicant for a further period of three months with effect from 21.02.2013, vide Order dated 20.02.2013. Again the respondents vide Order dated 06.06.2013 extended the period of suspension of the applicant for a further period of three months w.e.f. 21.05.2013. Thereafter, the respondents extended the period of suspension of the applicant from time to time and accordingly, he is being continued under suspension as on today. 2. The applicant filed the present OA questioning his suspension and extension of suspension orders on the ground that the same are violative of Rule 10(6) and (...
Tag this Judgment!