Delhi Court May 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.
Om Prakash Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
$-11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :22. d MAY, 2014 + CRL.A.No.794/2012 OM PRAKASH ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellant Om Prakash questions the legality of a judgment dated 05.02.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.11/10 arising out of FIR No.84/09 PS Mahendra Park by which he was convicted under Section 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/-.2. Briefly stated, prosecution case as projected in the charge- sheet was that on 11.12.2009 at about 6.45 pm, the appellant and his associates Sachin and Vijay (not arrested) in furtherance of common intention robbed Monu of his three mobile phones and cash ` 514/- at knife / blade point. Thereafter, at 7.40 pm they robbed complainant, Gyan Chand, of a mobile pho...
B.R.L. Saxena Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:24. 02.2014 Judgment delivered on:22. 05.2014 + WP(C) 3034/1996 B.R.L. SAXENA ......PETITIONER VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Ms. Ashly Cherian, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr.Amit Kumar and Vikas Mehta, Advocates for R-2 Mr. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 By this writ petition, the following broad reliefs are sought : i) A writ order or direction to quash the order dated 14.06.1995, passed by the Additional General Manager of the Delhi Electrical Supply Undertaking (as it then was), as also, the decision dated 24.05.1995 passed by the Delhi Electrical Supply Committee (in short DESC). It is the case of the petitioner that decision dated 24.05.1995, which forms the basis of the order dated 14.06.1995, was not communicated to him. ii). Grant of promotion as Assistant Personnel Officer w.e.f...
Smt. Saroj and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.10/2014 22nd May, 2014 % SMT. SAROJ & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 whereby the Tribunal on the death of the original claimant has not allowed substitution of the legal heirs by observing that there is delay in filing the application and there is no provision for condonation of delay.2. Nothing shows more mis-application of mind by the Tribunal than this case because the Tribunal has not even cared to see Rule 26 proviso of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and which specifically allows bringing on record the legal heirs on sufficient cause being shown. Though the word condonation of delay is not written in th...
Dharamwati Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :19.5.2014 Judgment delivered on :22.5.2014 + CRL.A.93/2002 3509/2014 & DHARAMWATI Through: CRL.M.A. Nos.364/2002, 9572/2009, Appellant Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + .Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP. CRL.A.94/2002 & CRL.M.A. No.3511/2014 SUKHBIR SINGH Through: Appellant Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Adv. Versus STATE Through: .Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. Both husband and wife i.e. Sukhbir and Dharamwati have been convicted for the offence under Sections 366/376/342 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Appellant Sukhbir has been held guilty of the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 366, 376 & 342 of the IPC; his wife Dharamwati has also been convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Section 376, 366 & 342 of the IPC. Accused Sukhbir has been sent...
Sher Khan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :15. h MAY, 2014 DECIDED ON :22. d MAY, 2014 + CRL.A. 985/2011 & CRL.M.B.No.560/2014 SHER KHAN ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Imran Khan, Advocate. Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to a conviction recorded under Sections 392/397/34 IPC by a judgment dated 28.05.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.118/10 arising out of FIR No.90/2010 PS Kalyan Puri. By an order dated 01.06.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 1,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 26.03.2010 at about 11.00 P.M. at Khichripur Main Road, near Community Bhawan, Delhi, he and his associate Sikku (nor attested) robbed Jitender Bhati of ` 1,200/- and a gold chain at knife point. The police machinery came into motion on getting information of the incident at 231...
Jumbo Chemicals and Allied Industries Private Limi Vs. M/S Arjun Indus ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 05.2014 CO. PET. 221/2012 & CO. APPL. No.261/2013 JUMBO CHEMICALS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner versus M/S ARJUN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Dinkar Singh. For the Respondents : Mr Virender Ganda, Mr Vipul Ganda and Mr Santosh Giri. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner company under Sections 433(e) & (f) and 434 read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia praying for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company had failed and neglected to pay a sum of `28,99,00,000/- alongwith interest, which was claimed as due and payable by the respondent company, on account of financial facilities granted by Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as IDBI) ...
Roop Vihar Nagrik Vikas Samiti (Regd.) Vs. State of Rajasthan Through ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member: 1. This Original Application was originally filed as a Writ Petition No.13851/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and subsequently came to be transferred to this Tribunal under the orders dated 23rd September, 2013 of the Hon'ble High Court. 2. On receipt of the case in NGT, Bhopal Bench, notices were issued by this Tribunal vide its order dated 5th December, 2013 and the matter was taken up after service on 27th January, 2014. The Applicant did not appear though the Respondents put in appearance before the Tribunal. To enable the Applicant to appear before the Tribunal the case was adjourned to 18th February, 2014. On 18th February, 2014, the Applicant again failed to appear before this Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following order was recorded : - "This petition is originally filed as a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. The Applicant had raised the dispute with regard to ...
Col. Punam Bali Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
1. This is an application seeking clarification of judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed by this Tribunal. It is stated that in para 24 of the judgment while considering the issue regarding holding of successive court of inquiry the court has observed as under: œTherefore, we hold that ordering of successive courts of inquiry is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and malafide on the part of the respondents?. 2. However, while allowing the petition, the court of inquiry ordered against the petitioner has not been set aside. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the allowing of the application will tantamount to review of the judgment which can not be permitted in the present case unless there is a proper application. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. While scanning through the para 24 of the judgment, we have clearly found that ordering of successive courts of inquiry in the present case is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play a...
The Commissioner, Kvs Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5419/2013 Date of decision:22. d May, 2014 % THE COMMISSIONER, KVS Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajappa and Ms.Aditi Sinha, Advocates. versus ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.T.D.Yadav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 25 th February, 2013 in O.A.No.1292/2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The facts disclosed before us would show that the respondent was appointed as an Audit Assistant (re-designated as Assistant Superintendent) with the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (appellant before us). Pursuant to a charge-sheet dated 16th May, 2000, disciplinary proceedings were held against the respondent which culminated in an enquiry report dated 9 th February, 2002 whereby the Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the following charges.:Artic...
M/S Santosh Timber Trading Co Ltd Vs. M/S Maxwell Plywood Industries a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1898/2012 % Judgment dated 22.5.2014 M/S SANTOSH TIMBER TRADING CO LTD ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Kailash Chandra, Adv. versus M/S MAXWELL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES & ANRS ..... Defendants Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.24,92,600/- together with pendente lite and future interest from the date of decree, upto the date of realisation and cost of the suit with interest thereon.2. Summons in the suit were issued vide Order dated 4.7.2012. Defendants entered appearance in Court on 13.2.2013, when copies were furnished by the counsel for the plaintiff to the counsel for the defendants and thirty days time was granted to the defendants to file the written statement. Matter was adjourned to 22.8.2013, on which date further time was sought by counsel for the defendants to file the written statement, however, since the stipulated period for filing t...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »