Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 32 of about 432 results (0.022 seconds)Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. State Thr. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: March 25, 2014 Decision on: April 4, 2014 CRL.A. No.124 of 2008 ASHISH KUMAR DUBEY Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mohd. Faraz, Ms. Swati Goswami, Mr. Shiv Pande, Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath and Mr. Nishank Mattoo, Advocates versus STATE THR. C.B.I. Through: Mr. Manoj Public Prosecutor. ..... Respondent Ohri, Special CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0404.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25 th January 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) in CC No.07/03 convicting the Appellant under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 28th January 2008 sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and RI...
Tag this Judgment!Praneeta Soni Vs. Panchshila Hospitality Ventures Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: April 04, 2014 CM(M) No.903/2012 & C.M. No.13850/2012 (for stay) PRANEETA SONI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Chetan Chawla, Adv. versus PANCHSHILA HOSPITALITY VENTURES LTD & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Arun Khosla, Adv. with Ms.Shreeanka Kakkar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the abovementioned petition along with pending application.2. The petitioner Smt.Praneeta Soni has filed the present petition against four respondents, namely, Panchshila Hospitality Ventures Ltd. (respondent No.1), Narinder Jeet Singh Kanwar (respondent No.2), his wife Kavita Kanwar (respondent No.3) and his son Abhayjeet Kanwar (respondent No.4) who are defendants No.1 to 4 in suit proceedings. Mrs.Ranjit Charles Singh, who was impleaded as defendant No.5 in the suit proceedings died on 30 th January, 2012. The application for seeking exe...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Lalmani and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. h April, 2014 CM(M) 335/2014 % + THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate. Versus LALMANI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.6258/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 335/2014 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.07.2013, whereby his application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 10.01.2013 was dismissed.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 10.01.2013, proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, however, the learned Tribunal did not allow him to appear and accordingly, passed the aforesaid ex parte order against the petitioner.3. Being aggrieved with the same, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Saichanakya Vs. Priti Tandon and anr.
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : April 04, 2014 + RFA (OS) 44/2014 SAICHANAKYA Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Siddharth Yadav, Advocate with Mr.Wasim Ashraf and Mr.K.B.Thakur, Advocates versus PRITI TANDON & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Samrat Nigam, Ms.Ankita Mahajan and Ms.Ayshwarya Chandar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Priti, Premlata and Snehlata are the three daughters of Late Col.R.K.Tandon who died on December 08, 1986. Their brother Balram died issueless on October 18, 1996. He died intestate. Their mother Dhaniyawati died intestate on November 06, 2005. So pleading, Preeti and Premlata instituted a suit seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No.C-31, Westend Colony, New Delhi 110021 pleading that the same belonged to their father. The two claimed 1/3 rd share each in the said property and stated that the rem...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Leela Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.380/2013 4th April, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Manoj V. George, Adv. VERSUS LEELA DEVI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 8.2.2013 by which the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents, who are the dependants of the deceased Mahendra Kumar who died in an untoward incident (within the meaning of the expression in Sections 123(c) & 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989) on 10.6.2010.2. The facts of the case are that Mahendra Kumar, husband of respondent no.1, was travelling ex-Palwal to Ghaziabad in an EMU train alongwith his son on two valid tickets on 10.6.2010. There was a huge rush in the compartment and the deceased fell down from the train on account of a sudd...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvapriya Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : April 01, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : April 04, 2014 + LPA7792010 S.K.GUPTA & ORS. Represented by: .....Appellants Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate versus MCD & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Ramakant Tripathi, Advocate for Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Manoj Khanna, Advocate for R-8 LPA1132011 SARVAPRIYA COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. .....Appellant Represented by: Mr.Rajeshwer Kumar Gupta, Advocate with Ms.Sumati Sharma, Advocate versus MCD & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Ramakant Tripathi, Advocate for Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Manoj Khanna, Advocate for R-8 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. acres. 14% of 30.44 acres comes to 4.26 acres. 5% of 4.26 acres is 0.213 4.26 0.213 = 4.047. 2.583 + 1.373 = 3.956. 4.047 3.956 = 0.091 acres. This equals to around 450 square y...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh HussaIn @ Gatku Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:04. 04.2014 + CRL. A.38 of 2010 SHEIKH HUSSAIN @ GATKU ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 13.5.2009, at about 5:09 p.m. Police Station Jahagirpuri was informed that a thief had been caught in W-Block, Ramleela Ground, Mangal Bazar. The information was recorded vide DD No.37A and Head Constable Ram Kumar was instructed on telephone to investigate the matter. The aforesaid police officer reached Mangal Bazar Road near Ramleela Ground, Jahagirpuri, where the complainant Sheikh Ansar met him. Sheikh Ansar produced the appellant Sheikh Hussain along with a scissor. On search of the appellant, a purse containing Rs.250/- in cash and driving licence of the complainant as well as his PAN card was recovered from the right pocket of his pant. The statement of Sheikh Ansar was recorded by...
Tag this Judgment!Jagiro Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:04. 04.2014 + CRL. A.1021 of 2013 JAGIRO Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sunil Mehta & Mr. Raman Sahney, Advs. versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 4.4.2011, S.I. Alok Kumar of Police Station Nand Nagri was on patrol along with Head Constable Sita Ram and Constable Sonu. At about 6:40 p.m., he received a secret information that a woman, who would come from the side of DTC Depot, Nand Nagri and go towards Pratibha School, D-Block of Nand Nagri could be having illicit ganja with her. The information was conveyed by him to the SHO, Police Station Nand Nagri on telephone. The SHO having instructed him to take appropriate action, he called lady Constable Kavita to the spot and the raiding party reached Pratibha School, D-Block and took positions there. 4-5 passers-by were requested to join the raiding party but as usual no one agreed ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Chaudhary Vs. Pappu Paswan and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. h April, 2014 % + CM(M) 331/2014 RAJESH CHAUDHARY Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, Advocate. Versus PAPPU PASWAN & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking release of the amount lying deposited in the form of FDR with State Bank of India, Girdghar Plaza, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, in his favour.2. As averred in the instant petition, that matter has been settled in the Lok Adalat held on 14.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- towards full and final settlement. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- was given in cash and rest of the amount, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered to be kept in FDR for a period of five years to be matured on 08.11.2018.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into a Sale Agreement to purchase a...
Tag this Judgment!Afroz Jahan Vs. S.A. Naqvi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.97/2014 4th April, 2014 % AFROZ JAHAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Advocate. Versus S.A. NAQVI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.6293/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. +RSA No.97/2014 and C.M. Nos.6238/2014 (stay), 6240/2014 (condonation of delay in filing) and 6241/2014 (condonation of delay in refiling) 2. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 23.4.2013. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant by refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff/landlord filed the suit for recovery of rent of the tenanted premises b...
Tag this Judgment!