Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 28 of about 432 results (0.022 seconds)Kausiya Dheemer Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secr ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. The aforesaid Original Application came to be registered before this Tribunal after the Original Writ Petition No. 8708/2009 filed by the Applicant, Smt Kausiya Dheemer by way of PIL, came to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dtd. 16th January, 2014 to this Tribunal. After receipt of the Writ Petition and registration as an Original Application, the matter was listed on 10th March, 2014 on which date the Applicant appeared through the Counsel. Shri Sachin K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 and Shri Shivendu Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Having gone through the petition and the record of the proceedings of the Hon'ble High Court this Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3, MP State Pollution Control Board (in short MPPCB) to file an affidavit of their responsible officer on the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Punamchand and Another Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Originally, the Applicants filed Writ Petition No.4044 of 2001, in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, alleging that certain forest lands were being illegally diverted for non-forest purposes, which would cause felling of trees to the extent of 2.5 to 3 lakhs and that would be a great loss to the environment. 2. By order dated October 1st, 2003, Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court, transferred the Writ Petition to this Tribunal in view of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Bhopal Gas PeedithMahilaUdyogSangathanandAnrVs Union of India" (2012) 8, SCC 326." Thereafter, it was registered as an Application No.10 (THC)/2013. We may note that none has appeared for the Applicants before this Tribunal, after transfer of the Writ Petition, inspite of issuance of Notices. However, on January 31st, 2014, Mr. S.D. Bade, Advocate appeared for the Applicants and informed that he was instructed to appear and was likelyVakalatnama for the Applicants. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Surender Kumar, Delhi Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed seeking for a review of the order pronounced on 30.01.2014 in TA No. 1086/2009. The operative portion of the order in TA was as follows:- "22. It is, therefore, clear and apparent that the applicant does not have any substantive grievance which requires a judicial intervention or determination from this Tribunal, and actually his grievances could have been settled if the issue concerning his seniority, in respect of which he had given numerous representations, had been settled, after which he would have perhaps automatically become eligible for being counted among the 30% segment of NFSG on the basis of his seniority. Therefore, this TA is disposed of, with liberty being granted to the applicant to consolidate his grievance as raised by him with the respondents through his representations dated 07.02.2005, 31.03.2005, 15.04.2005, 30.06.2005, 06.08.2005 and 09.12.2005 into a single representation, and the Respondent Nor...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and ors Vs. Rajnesh Jain
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.5883/2013 & CM Nos.12958/2013 & 1053/2014 Date of Decision:16. h April, 2014 UOI AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. versus RAJNESH JAIN Through ..... Respondent Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 7th February, 2013 passed in OA No.1362/2012 whereby the Tribunal has accepted the present respondents challenge to the OMs dated 18th October, 2010 and 17th January, 2012 whereby the representations relating to adverse remarks and grading in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2005-06 were rejected. The Tribunal accepted the respondents challenge by its judgment dated 7 th February, 2013 which is assailed before us.2. The factual matrix in the instant case is undisputed. The respondent was working as Joint Director in the Social Statisti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Vs. State (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:15. 04.2014 + CRL.A. 845/2013 MAHENDER SINGH@MUNNA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CRL.A. 1022/2013 VINOD @ LADDU @ KALU Through: versus ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. STATE + Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. CRL.A. 1024/2013 RAJESH Versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CRL.A. 447/2014 RAJ KUMAR Through: Crl. A. No845, 1022, 1024 of 2013 and 447 of 2014 ..... Appellant Ms. Jyotsana Gupta, Adv. Page 1 of 25 Versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.Crl.M.A. No.5788/2014 (Exemption) in Crl.A. No.447/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. State (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:15. 04.2014 + CRL.A. 845/2013 MAHENDER SINGH@MUNNA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CRL.A. 1022/2013 VINOD @ LADDU @ KALU Through: versus ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. STATE + Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. CRL.A. 1024/2013 RAJESH Versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CRL.A. 447/2014 RAJ KUMAR Through: Crl. A. No845, 1022, 1024 of 2013 and 447 of 2014 ..... Appellant Ms. Jyotsana Gupta, Adv. Page 1 of 25 Versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.Crl.M.A. No.5788/2014 (Exemption) in Crl.A. No.447/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Jivender Kumar JaIn Vs. Jaswant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15. h April, 2014. % + CS(OS) 958/2011, IA No.6385/2011 (u/O39R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.5550/2012 (of the defendant no.1 for preponment of date) JIVENDER KUMAR JAIN Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Ashesh Lal, Mr. Raghav Parwatiyar, Ms. Salma Sideam & Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Advs. Versus JASWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ...Defendant Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The file is taken up today as 14th April, 2014 was a holiday.2. The suit is listed today for hearing arguments on the issues ordered on 16th December, 2013 to be treated as preliminary.3. None appears for the defendants.4. However the counsel for the plaintiff has been asked to argue. The counsel for the plaintiff is also not willing to argue contending that there are some subsequent developments which have to be brought on record. However the counsel has been asked to argue, as on such excuses, especially when the plaintiff has been enjoying the...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Allianz General Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Shailender Singh @ Sher Ba ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO252014 & CM8732014 (stay), CM8752014 (delay) 15th April, 2014 % BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL ASSURANCE CO LTD. .... Appellant Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate versus SHAILENDER SINGH @ SHER BAHADUR & ANR. ... Respondents Through Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM8752014 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of. FAO252014 & CM8732014 (stay) 1. In this first appeal which is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter "the Act") challenging the order dated 15.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, two points are argued on behalf of the appellant/insurance company. First is that once in the main order of grant of compensation, and which is dated 9.5.2012, medical expenses...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Phoolo Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:15. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP.No.377/2013 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate. Versus PHOOLO DEVI & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.N.K.Jha, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 13.02.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.17,01,591/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr.Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was engaged permanently in some employment and was earning some amount. Thus, the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Durga Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % UNION OF INDIA FAO No.97/2012 15th April, 2014 ......Appellant Through: None. VERSUS DURGA DEVI & ORS. Through: .... Respondents Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.4092/2012 (delay of 42 days) For the reasons stated in application delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO972012 & CM No.11219/2012 (stay) 1. No one appears for the appellant, although it is 4.10 PM. I have heard the counsel for the respondents and after perusing the record am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21.9.2011 by which the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents herein. Claim petition was allowed for the statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs on account of death of Sh. Banwari Lal, and who w...
Tag this Judgment!