Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rohit Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : March 05, 2014 DECIDED ON : April 03, 2014 + CRL.A.843/2012 ROHIT Through : versus ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate. STATE Through : ..... Respondent M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 02.05.2012 in Sessions Case No.33/11 arising out of FIR No.38/11 registered at PS Prasad Nagar by which the appellant-Rohit was held guilty for committing offence under Section 304 (II) IPC. By an order dated 07.05.2012, he was awarded RI for seven years.2. Bihari Lal-appellants father was found dead inside his house No.16/1644 E, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi on 14.02.2011. Daily Diary (DD) No.36A was recorded at 10.06 p.m. at Police Station Prasad Nagar on getting information from PCR that an individual who used to consume liquor had died inside his house. The investigation was assigned to SI Manish who with Ct.Bhur Singh went to the spot. He spotted t...
Natioinal Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Nand Lal and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d April, 2014 % + MAC.APP.565/2011 NATIOINAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Advocate. Versus SHRI NAND LAL & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 19.02.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.75,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, which has been proved by RW2 and R3W1, despite, the learned Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i....
Jitender Kumar, Rajasthan Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A). The applicant has filed this OA in the 3rd round of litigation. He had applied for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) [Male] in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT) in response to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) advertisement no.07/2007, post code 153/07. After qualifying in the written test he was declared successful and issued an offer of appointment on 23.02.2009 and he joined the post on 19.05.2009. Subsequently, on verification of his documents it came to light that he did not possess the requisite eligibility qualification of B. Ed. on the cut off date, i.e., on 29.10.2007. Taking that as a ground as also that the applicant has concealed this material fact a show cause notice (SCN) was issued to him by R-3 on 21.09.2010 giving him three days time for submitting reply. After considering the reply submitted by the applicant his services were terminated vide order dated 05.10.2010. The applicant had e...
Loveyani, Delhi Vs. D.M. Spolia, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct of Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
(Oral). V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. Even on revised call, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have already served copies of the MAs on the applicant. 2. The respondents No.1 and 3 were directed to be present on 14.04.2014 since there was no representation on their behalf on 06.03.2014. Now, the respondents No.1 and 3 have filed MAs No. 994/2014 and 995/2014 respectively, seeking recalling of the order dated 06.03.2014. 3. Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, the learned counsel for respondents, submits that she was instructed to appear on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3 on the said date but inadvertently and due to mis-communication between her and her junior counsel, the case could not be represented, and seeks indulgence of this Court to recall the personal presence of respondents No.1 and 3. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the orders dated 04.07.2013 of this Tribunal in OA 3302/2012, against which th...
Dr. K.P. Poonacha, Bangalore Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J). 1. The controversy arises to be determined in the present OAs is, whether the short listing of the candidates for their further consideration for the post of Director General in the Archaeological Survey of India in revised pay band HAG Rs. 67000-79000/- is in order or not . 2. As can be abridged from the pleadings of the parties, documents on record and written submissions brought to fore by the parties the Government of India, Ministry of Culture issued Office Memorandum F.No.7-52/2012/ASI/AS dated 20.11.2012 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Director General (ibid) in Archaeological Survey of India, an attached office of the Ministry of Culture on promotion/transfer on deputation/contract basis. The eligibility conditions prescribed for appointment to the post through different modes as mentioned in the Memorandum read as under:- "Subject: Filling up the post of Director General in Archaeological Survey of India under Ministry of Culture...
Naresh Kumar Gaur Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:3. d April, 2014 + MAC.APP. No.824/2013 NARESH KUMAR GAUR ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Adv. Versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the award dated 10.05.2013, whereby while awarding the compensation for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount, Ld. Tribunal granted recovery rights against the appellant and in favour of respondent / Insurance Company.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.2012, at about 2.15 PM Master Aryan, aged about 3 years (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was playing in front of D-668, Qutub Vihar, Phase-II, Near Samshan Ghat, Goyla Dairy, New Delhi when he was hit by a car bearing No.DL-9C-AA-0...
Kiran Singh Vs. Pritam Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.1387/2011 Decided on:3. d April, 2014 KIRAN SINGH Through: Plaintiff Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Advocate. Versus PRITAM SINGH & ANR. Through: Defendants Mr. J.P. Sengh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Yadav, Mr. Sumit & Ms. Ankita, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) I.A. No.6275/2014 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking permission of the Court to amend the suit from a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession to suit for specific performance.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also gone through the record.3. The plaintiff, an agriculturist, has filed the present suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession on the allegation that the plaintiff is a resident of A-5, Asola, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi. The plaintiff had allegedly entered into an Agreement to Sell with the defendant in respect ...
Suman Kumari and ors Vs. Dharambir Singh and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d April, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 857/2013 SUMAN KUMARI & ORS ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv. versus DHARAMBIR SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Amit Aggarwal and Mr. Satyajit Sarna, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM. No.14921/2013 1. Vide the instant application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the above noted appeal.2. Notice in the instant application was issued vide order dated 23.09.2013. However, till date no reply thereto has been filed by the respondents.3. It is stated in the instant application that impugned award was passed on 11.12.2012 and the appellant No.1, widow of the deceased was in extreme depression and psychological help was required to bring her back to her senses. Thus delay has been caused to file the present appeal. Same was not deliberate.4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respo...
Sukhdev Yadav Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Reserved on:16. h April, 2013 Clarifications and Reserved on:22. d November, 2013 Date of Decision:2. d April, 2014 CRL.A. 145/2012 SUKHDEV YADAV ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Ravinder Kumar Kapoor, Adv. with Mr.Chaman Sharma, Adv. Versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP, Ms.Swati Goswami, Mr.Nikhil A. Menon & Ms. Manvi Priya, Advs. Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.For orders, see Crl. A. No.741/2008. GITA MITTAL, J.APRIL02 2014 J.R. MIDHA, J....
M D, Panbas Vs. Neelam and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:2. d April, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 797/2013 M D, PANBAS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Versus NEELAM & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.D.K.Sharma, Ms.Vandna Sharma and Mr.Ikram, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 29.04.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.9,35,652/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR Petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr.Kamal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased was driving Mahendra Champion, which is a commercial vehicle, whereas he was not possessing the commercial licence, as has been admitted by PW1, Sm...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »