Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 29 of about 432 results (0.021 seconds)Vinod @ Laddu @ Kalu Vs. State
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!Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: April 15, 2014 FAO(OS) 441/2010 HARYANA TELECOM LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.J.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.Narendera M.Sharma, Advocate versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocate + FAO(OS) 442/2010 HARYANA TELECOM LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.J.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.Narendera M.Sharma, Advocate versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocate + FAO(OS) 445/2010 HARYANA TELECOM LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.J.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.Narendera M.Sharma, Advocate versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Three Arbitral Awards dated June 19, 2007 passed by the same sole arbitrator have been set aside by the learned Single Judge vide impu...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Parshad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.109/2012 15th April, 2014 ......Appellant % JAGDISH PARSHAD Through: None. VERSUS STATE & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Nirmal Singh Berchhiwal, Adv.R-4. Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-5. 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 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the judgment of the probate court dated 2.12.2011. The probate court below has dismissed the probate petition on the ground that the Will has not been validly proved as per the deposition of the attesting witness.2. The relevant observations made by the court below are contained in para 19 of the impugned judgment and the same reads as under:19. Coming to the present matter, PW2 Sh. R.D.Kashyap was examined as one of the attesting witness. He has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.P-2. Here it is necessary to reproduce, the relevant portion of hi...
Tag this Judgment!SachIn Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :6. h MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :15. h APRIL, 2014 + CRL.A. 1440/2011 SACHIN KUMAR ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Sunil Upadhyay, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Sachin Kumar (the appellant) challenges conviction under Section 307 IPC by a judgment dated 23.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.34/11 arising out of FIR No.137/2009 PS Kapashera. By an order dated 27.09.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 20,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant as set up in the charge-sheet were that on the night intervening 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 at about 01.15 A.M. at Budha Hospital, Gali No.2, High Tension Wali Gali, Kapashera, New Delhi, he and his associate Bablu (not arrested) inflicted injuries to Krishan Mohan by firing at him in an attempt to murder. Information about the occur...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Tyagi and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.365/2012 15th April, 2014 % RAHUL TYAGI AND ANR. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Kapil Dua, Advocate VERSUS STATE ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is filed against the judgment of the probate court below dated 1.6.2012 by which the petition filed by the appellants herein for letters of administration in respect of the properties of their mother was dismissed. The subject properties are bearing nos.E-287, (Ground Floor & Basement), East of Kailash, New Delhi and 10-C, 2nd Floor, B-Block, SFS Flats, East of Kailash, New Delhi.2. Appellants/petitioners states that Smt. Bela Tyagi, their mother, died on 9.12.2009 leaving behind two petitioners/appellants who are her son and daughter. It was further the case of the appellants/petitioners that besides the two of them, th...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.Builders Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.422/2012 15th April, 2014 A.R.BUILDERS ......Appellant Through: None. VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Tejasni Shetty, Adv. for Ms. Shyel Trehan, Adv. 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 and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) impugning the judgment of the court below dated 11.6.2012 by which the objections filed by the appellant/objector under Section 34 of the Act, were dismissed.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant was awarded the work of construction of 13 numbers of class-rooms, one hall, one office, one store and two laboratory blocks in MC Primary School, Pocket-B, Phase-1, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan by the respondent no.1 herein i.e Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Disputes and differences arose after completion of w...
Tag this Judgment!R.K.B.K.Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Dayal Kansal and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : March 10, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: April 15, 2014 + RFA(OS)15/2013 . Appellant R.K.B.K.FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. Represented by: Mr.Parag P.Tripathi, Senior Advocate, instructed by Ms.Pratibha Sinha, Mr.Kunal Bahl and Mr.Dhawal Mehrotra, Advocates versus ISHWAR DAYAL KANSAL AND ANR. .... Respondents Represented by: Respondent No.1 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2012 whereby the suit of the respondents seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated February 09, 2005 was decreed in favour of the respondents with a direction to the respondent to pay to the appellant the balance sale consideration of `6.25 crores (Rupees six crore and twenty five lacs only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of payment. Cross objectio...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamshila Hospital Employee Union (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on April 15, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2285/2014 DHARAMSHILA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE UNION (REGD.) ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Represented by: None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) C.M No.4804/2014 Allowed; subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2285/2014 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated August 21, 2012 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on an application filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that he be declared as a protected workman under Section 33(4) read with Rule 61 of the Rules of 1957. Suffice to state that the declaration sought was for the period between April 01, 2011 to March 31, 2012.2. Initially the petitioner along with other office bearers filed an application with the respondent organization for declaring them as a protected workman. It appears that no action was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Chattar Singh and ors. Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 15, 2014 + LPA13022007 CHATTAR SINGH & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Jagmohan Sabharwal, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.R.P.Sharma, Mr.Samir Sagar Vasisht and Mr.Vaibhav Mehra, Advocates. versus MCD Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Shilpa Dhawan, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Arora, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Listed in the category of Final Hearing Matters, WP(C) 6115/1998 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated February 05, 2007. The order was passed in the absence of any representation from the side of the appellants.2. The learned Single Judge noted that the lay-out plan produced by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi would evidence that the land which was subject matter of dispute was earmarked for use as a Community Centre and that a demarcation conducted on November 07, 2002 had con...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Modi Entertainment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:15th April, 2014 % + ITA2342013 CIT Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Bhoomika Choudhury, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.1. The following question of law was framed on 25.3.2014:Whether the Tribunal fell into error in setting aside the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs.31,39,988/- in the circumstances of the case?.2. Against the assessment to income tax made for the assessment year 2001-02 by order dated 23.2.2004, the assessee filed an appeal which went up to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the assessment on two issues : (1) disallowance of interest under section 14A and (2) disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii), and remand...
Tag this Judgment!