Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Sonu and anr. Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
$~R-34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :09. 5.2014 Judgment delivered on :19. 5.2014 CRL.A. 830/2002 SONU AND ANR. Through ..... Appellants Ms.Rita Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.Crl.M.A. No.2782/2002 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. CRL.A. No.830/2002 1 There are two appellants before this Court namely Sonu and Judagi. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2002 and order of sentence dated 05.10.2002 wherein Sonu had been convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months. Appellant Judagi had been convicted under Section 363 of the IPC had been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Haseen Bano Vs. Mohd. Israel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(C)13/2013 % 19th May, 2014 HASEEN BANO Through: ......Appellant Ms. Monica Kapoor, Adv. VERSUS MOHD. ISRAEL Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Kapil Rustagi, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Section 24 CPC filed by the wife for transfer of the suit filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights presently pending in the Karkardooma Courts to the Family Court at Rohini where the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant is pending.2. The following salient aspects persuade me to exercise my power under Section 24 CPC in favour of the petitioner in the present case:- Tr.P(C)13/2013 Page 1 of 3 (i) Appellant-plaintiff is not earning anything. Though the respondent claimed that the appellant was working, however the appellant has specifically denied the stand of the respondent that she is working anywhere. Hence ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Associated Jute Industries Vs. State Farms Corporation of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 2138/2014 and CM No.4459/2014 M/S ASSOCIATED JUTE INDUSTRIES ... Petitioner versus STATE FARMS CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Julien George and Mr Nitin Sharma For the Respondent : Mr G. Joshi and Mr Umang Jain, for respondent No.1 Mr Amrit Pal Singh, Ad for UOI CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner (Associated Jute Industries A Sole Proprietorship concern of Mr Pramod Agarwal) seeks the setting aside of the notice dated 26.03.2014 issued by the respondent (State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.) whereby, the petitioner has been shown as having been disqualified in the appraisal of the Techno Commercial bid submitted by the petitioner. Though no reasons have been indicated in the said notice dated 26.03.2014...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Amna Bi and ors. Vs. Aziz Ur- Rehman Decd. Thr. Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.171/2010 19th May, 2014 MST. AMNA BI & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Adv. VERSUS AZIZ UR- REHMAN DECD. THR. LRS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Jabbar Hussain, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.20025/2013 (for restoration) There is no opposition to this application and which is therefore allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number. RSA1712010 1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 27.1.2004 and the first appellate court dated 18.3.2010; whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for declaration of ownership has been decreed. Respondent no.1 (now represented by his legal heirs) was the sole plaintiff in the trial court. The plaintiff was declared to be the owner of the suit properties bearing nos. 431 and 486, Shehzada Bag...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: May 09, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: May 19, 2014 % + WP(C) 17624/2004 RAJESH SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Hema Sahu, Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Advocate versus UOI & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges the order dated May 16, 2002, holding him guilty of the first and the third charge framed against him and inflicting punishment of dismissal from service. Appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were rejected vide orders dated October 23, 2002 and March 28, 2003 respectively. Though the same have not been challenged in the prayer made, we treat the same to be challenged in the present writ petition.2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in CRPF and was attached to the 88th Bn. It was alleged against hi...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.387/1999 MADHUSUDAN Through : .....Appellant Mr.Vivek Sood, Adv. Versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .. Respondent Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Pronounced on :19. h May, 2014 % CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The Appellant Madhusudan has preferred this appeal through Jail praying for his acquittal mainly on the ground that the reasoning given by learned Addl. Session Judge while acquitting his co-accused Kanwaljit @ Bittoo and Kuldeep Rai @ Tony should have also resulted in his acquittal.2. We may note here that State did not prefer any appeal challenging the acquittal of co-accused Kanwaljit and Kuldeep Rai. However, co-convict Manoj @ Mannu preferred Crl.A. No.212/1999 against his conviction under Section 302/307/34 IPC and the sentences awarded to him by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the said appeal, the Appellant Manoj @ Mannu claimed himself to be juven...
Tag this Judgment!Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. and anr Vs. Sandeep Chohan @ Sandeep Kumar and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.1293/2014 Decided on:19. h May, 2014 DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ANR Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pradyuman Dubey, Advocate. Versus SANDEEP CHOHAN @ SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS. Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) IA Nos.9552/2014 ( Order VI Rule 17 CPC) 1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the averments made therein. Since the case is at the threshold, therefore, the amendment is allowed and the amended plaint be taken on record.2. The application stands disposed of. IA No.9553/2014 (Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC) & CS(OS) No.1293/2014 1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a registered proprietor and the owner of the trade mark Agarwal Packers and Movers Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Bhatia Vs. Nikhil Chohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.2806/2011 Decided on :19. h May, 2014 VIKAS BHATIA Through: Plaintiff Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Advocate. Versus NIKHIL CHOHAN Through: Defendant Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.24 lacs along with future and pendente lite interest @ 18 per cent per annum.2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant approached the plaintiff, who is a goldsmith by profession, for a friendly loan of Rs.24 lacs and promised to repay the aforesaid amount on or before 20.10.2011. Consequently, the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.24 lacs to the defendant on different dates, details of which are as under :- Date 15.9.2009 10.10.2009 25.10.2009 20.11.2009 15.12.2009 6.1.2010 3. Amount (Rs.) 5,00,000/5,00,000/3,00,000/2,00,000/4,00,000/5,00,000/_________ Total:24. 00,000/_________ The defendant duly acknowledged and acc...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. M/S. Hindustan Times Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on February 05, 2014 Judgment Delivered on May 19, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6791/2013 GOPAL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Ashwin Vaish, Mr.Vinod Pandey & Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda, Advocates versus M/S. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Harvinder Singh, Ms. Megha Gaur, Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. 2013 The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated May 17, passed by the Labour Court in Computer I.D. No.02402C0485502005, whereby the Labour Court has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the petitioner and thereby answered the reference made by the appropriate Government on August 17, 2005. It may be necessary to state here that the initial reference was made by the appropriate Government with regard to five workers. It appears that the Labour Court has directed the workers to file separate set of claims, which they did.2. The facts a...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 932/2010 ANITA DEVI & ORS. Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Through ..... Respondents None. Reserved on : Date of Decision : % 2nd May, 2014 19th May, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: CM Appl, 5755/2014 (restoration) in W.P.(C) 932/2010 Keeping in view the averments made in the application along with the personal affidavit of the counsel, present application is allowed and the order dated 15th April, 2014 dismissing the writ petition is recalled. W.P.(C) 932/2010 & CM Appl. 1936/2010 1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:i) Call for the records relating to late Girdhari Rai lying with the Respondent Authorities; ii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction to quash the order/decision dated 23.12.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi; 2. iii) issue writ of manda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »