Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 1 of about 438 results (0.031 seconds)Krishan Kant Singh, Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. National Ganga River ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member): 1. The Application is filed under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act seeking directions to the respondents to stop releasing harmful effluent from Simbhaoli Sugar mill and Distillery and Gopal Ji Dairy (Respondents no. 7 and 8 respectively) into Simbhaoli Drain and finally into the River Ganga and also for a direction to the Central Pollution Control Board (Respondent no.3) to assess the pollution done by Respondents 7 and 8 and for restoration of the area and other reliefs by the Applicants, a person and an organization working in the field of environment, jointly. The case of the Applicants is that respondent No. 7 is an industry of Sugar Mills and Distillery, established in 1933 and 1943 respectively. They are now operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the total crushing capacity is 20,100 TCD and the unit at Simbhaoli alone is having a crushing capacity of 9,500 TCD and they are discharging unt...
Tag this Judgment!India Tourism Development Corporation Limited Vs. Miss Susan Leigh Bee ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 01.2014 Pronounced on :30. 05.2014 + RFA (OS) 75/2011, C.M. APPL. 15966/2011 INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ..Petitioner Through: Sh. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. R.S. Mathur and Sh. Amitabh Marwah, Advocates. Versus MISS SUSAN LEIGH BEER ..Respondents Through: Sh. Madan Bhatia, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Anup Kumar Sinha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The unsuccessful defendant (i.e. the appellant India Tourism Development Corporation, hereafter called ITDC) challenges the judgment and decree of the Learned Single Judge of this court, who had held it liable to the extent of 1,82,00,000/- (Rupees one crore eighty two lakhs) with simple interest thereon @ 6% per annum w.e.f 22.01.1982 till the date of the decree and future simple interest on that amount @ 10% per annum till its realization.2. The brief facts are t...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Malani Vs. Delhi Prantiya Marwari Yuva Manch and ors
Court: Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. 05.2014 CM(M) 1067/2011, CM APPLs. 17144/2011 and 18242/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate versus VINAY MALANI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshumaan Sahni, Ms Aastha Dhawan, Mr. Shanker Chhabra and Ms.Aakriti Jain, Advs. CM(M) 606/2013, CM APPL. 9118/2013 VINAY MALANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshumaan Sahni, Ms Aastha Dhawan, Mr. Shanker Chhabra and Ms.Aakriti Jain, Advs. versus DELHI PRANTIYA MARWARI YUVA MANCH & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate for Pawan Gupta. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 Two petitions of two parties are being heard and decided by this common judgement. Although the petitions were filed two years apart and in respect of two different impugned orders, the petitions were heard together for two reasons: (a) t...
Tag this Judgment!Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and ors Vs. Natco Pharma Limited
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. h May, 2014 % + FAO(OS) 144/2014 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS ..... Appellants Through Mr.Parag P.Tripathi and Mr.Sudhir Chandra, Sr.Advocates with Mr.Pravin Anand, Mr.Nischal Anand, Ms.Savitha Suresh and Mr.Aman Taneja, Advocates. versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Rajeshwari H., Mr.Tahir Abduljabbar and Ms.Sudipa Dasgupta, Advocates. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impugns the order dated 28th February, 2014 of the learned Single Judge (exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction) of allowing IA No.10390/2012 of the respondent / defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC and returning the plaint in CS(OS) No.3193/2012 filed by the three appellants / plaintiffs for presentation in the appropriate Court.2. Notice of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh Hanif Solanki Vs. Sh. Babu Lal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. 05.2014 + C.R.P.No.149/2013 SH HANIF SOLANKI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Piyush Prabhakar, Adv. Versus SH. BABU LAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. J.C. Mahindroo with Mr. Ankur Mahindroo, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 The present petition impugns an order dated 30.4.2013 which directs eviction of the petitioner from a shop bearing No.968 Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarkpur admeasuring 3x6. The respondents petition under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was allowed while denying the petitioners/tenants leave to defend application. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the Trial Court fell into error in not considering certain triable issues raised in the leave to defend, such as the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts that the two shops in the same building were being run by his two sons who were under th...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Singh (In Jc) Vs. Hari Chand and Others
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.616/2011 Reserved on :30. h April, 2014 Date of decision:30. h May, 2014 RANDHIR SINGH (IN JC) ..... Appellant Through Mr. Manu Sharma & Mr.Abhir Datt, Advocates. versus HARI CHAND AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ashok Drall, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.: Appellant-Randhir Singh has preferred this appeal against acquittal of Hari Chand, Sant Ram, Prem Kumar @ Praveen, Naveen, Satpal and Sukhchain, who have been acquitted by the impugned judgment dated 26 th February, 2011. The said acquittal arises from Sessions Case No.53/2009 arising out of FIR No.73/2003, Police Station J.P. Kalan under Section 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).2. The aforesaid FIR was registered after Randhir Singh and late Kehar Singh had filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 6th March, 2003, marked Exhibi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroj Vs. Smt. Kusum Devi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.148/2014 30th May, 2014 % SMT. SAROJ ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ankit, Advocate Versus SMT. KUSUM DEVI ..... 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.9954/2014 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 26 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned, subject to just exceptions.2. C.M stands disposed of. C.M.No.9953/2014 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. C.M stands disposed of. RSA No.148/2014 & C.M.No.9952/2014 (Stay) 1. This regular second appeal under Section 100 of CPC impugns the concurrent judgments of the Courts below; of the Trial Court dated 27.4.2013 and the First Appellate Court dated 21.2.2014; by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for partition/declaration/possession and injunction was dismissed.2. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that she was the owner of the suit property bearing no.79/6/1, v...
Tag this Judgment!Procter and Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. Vs. Anchor Health ...
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. h May, 2014 % + FAO(OS) No.241/2014 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (TIANJIN) CO. LTD. & ORS. .. Appellants Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi & Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Prashant Gupta, Ms. Priya Rao, Ms. Taapsi Johri, Ms. Ruchi & Ms. Rajul Jain, Advs. Versus ANCHOR HEALTH & BEAUTY CARE PVT. LTD. ... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi with Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Advs. With Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Archana Sachdeva & Mr. Prashanth Kumar, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the order dated 9th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court (exercising Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) in CS(OS) No.1431/2013 filed by the respondent / plaintiff, of allowing IA No.11461/2013 of the respondent / plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC and restraining the appellants / d...
Tag this Judgment!Sandhya Pandey Vs. Kunj Bihar Pandey
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30.05.2014 + MAT.APP. 60/2012, CM APPL. 18340/2012 SANDHYA PANDEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Adv. versus KUNJ BIHAR PANDEY ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 This petition impugns an order dated 21.07.2011 which dismissed the petitioners petition seeking grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The facts are that the petitioner had married the respondent on 06.05.1990 at Chhapra, Bihar. The petitioner started living along with respondent as husband and wife in her matrimonial home. Two children namely Abhilasha and Master Abhinav were born to them. Petitioner came into her matrimonial home along with gifts and jewellery. However, after marriage unreasonable demands towards money as well as jewellery etc. continued to be made by the respondent and his family members. Since the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Naseem Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 572 of 2010 & Crl. M.(B) 1982 of 2011, 113 of 2012 Reserved on:26. h May 2014 Decision on:30. h May 2014 MOHD. NASEEM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.S. Khan and Mr. Akram Khan, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT3005.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th April 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.12 of 2008 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 3(1)(c) and 5(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) and the order on sentence dated 9th April 2010 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment (RI) for the offences under Sections 3 and 3 years RI for the offence under Section 5 of the OSA and to a pay fine of Rs.10,000 and in default to undergo RI for six months with both sentences being directed to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution is that Ins...
Tag this Judgment!