Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 25 of about 438 results (0.028 seconds)Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO1392014 16th May, 2014 MOHAN LAL Through: ......Appellant Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.1.2014 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant who was injured in an untoward incident on 26.2.2012.2. The case of the appellant was that on 26.2.2012, he was travelling by the train Himalaya Queen Exp. Train from Kalka to Delhi and he fell down accidently from the running train near the Sarai Rohilla/ Delhi Railway Station due to sudden jerk in the train. 3(i) So far as the aspect that the deceased was a bonafide passenger is concerned, the same is found in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has however found that the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Lt. Governor, Govt. ...
Court: Delhi
#38 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1968/2014 & CM APPL. 4116/2014 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Parijat Sinha with Mr. Avneesh Garg and Ms. Reshmi R. Sinha, Advocates versus THE LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Advocate for R-3 & 4. Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for R-5. Date of Decision :16. h May, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioners states that he does not wish to press prayer (v) of the present writ petition. Consequently, prayer (v) of the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.2. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 10th October, 2013 and 08th November, 2013 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO1402014 16th May, 2014 SMT. SUMITRA DEVI Through: ......Appellant Mr.R.L.Nanda , Advocate. VERSUS STATE & 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 first appeal is filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 impugning the judgment of the probate court by which the petition for letters of administration filed by the appellant with respect the Will dated 5.2.2008 of her late adoptive father Sh. Lakshman Singh has been dismissed.2. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the following salient facts have rightly persuaded the court below to dismiss the petition: (i) Petitioner who was an adopted daughter of the deceased testator Lakshman Singh had two litigations against Sh. Lakshman Singh in his life time. The first litigation was a suit which was filed by the petitioner against her father on 4.7.2007, by which pet...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Dhawan Vs. Naresh Dhawan
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: May 02, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: May 16, 2014 % + EFA(OS) 8/2014 MAMTA DHAWAN Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.P.S.Bindra and Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocates. versus NARESH DHAWAN Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Sumedha Dua, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Vide impugned order dated August 26, 2013, objections filed by the appellant to the execution petition filed by the respondent to execute a consent decree dated March 10, 2006 have been dismissed and the matter adjourned for further proceedings to give effect to the decree.2. The appellant and the respondent shared a matrimonial bond but have unfortunately strained the bond.3. On May 02, 2014, we had endeavoured our best to try and made the parties understand logic and reason and the uselessness of the litigation undertaken by the two.4. Whereas the respondent is aged 58 years, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Hamdard Education Society and anr. Vs. Abdul Rehman and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 16, 2014 + LPA5082013 HAMDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Deepak R.Dahiya, Advocate versus ABDUL REHMAN & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Advocate for R1/Abdul Rehman Ms.Megha Bharara, Advocate for Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2/Directorate of Education LPA9452013 ABDUL REHMAN Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Advocate versus PRINCIPAL RABEA GIRLS PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.Deepak R.Dahiya, Advocate for-1 & R-2 Ms.Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R3/Directorate of Education with Mr.S.C.Meena, DEO CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. At the outset it may be noted that the two appeals as also the two writ petitions, orders passed wherein have given birth to the two appeals were ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Vs. Principal Rabea Girls Public School and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 16, 2014 + LPA5082013 HAMDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Deepak R.Dahiya, Advocate versus ABDUL REHMAN & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Advocate for R1/Abdul Rehman Ms.Megha Bharara, Advocate for Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2/Directorate of Education LPA9452013 ABDUL REHMAN Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Advocate versus PRINCIPAL RABEA GIRLS PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.Deepak R.Dahiya, Advocate for-1 & R-2 Ms.Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R3/Directorate of Education with Mr.S.C.Meena, DEO CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. At the outset it may be noted that the two appeals as also the two writ petitions, orders passed wherein have given birth to the two appeals were ...
Tag this Judgment!Janak Datwani Vs. Jamna Datwani and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : May 02, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : May 16, 2014 FAO(OS) 592/2013 JANAK DATWANI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ayush Agrawal, Adv. Versus JAMNA DATWANI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Tara V.Ganju with Ms.Preeti Gupta, Advs for Jamna Datwani. Ms. Diya Kapur, Advocate for Nitya Bharany. Mr. Akhil Sachar (proxy counsel) for Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for Kishan Datwani. Mr.Suresh Singh for Anand Datwani FAO(OS) 593/2013 IN EXPORTS PVT LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan, Adv. with Mr.Milan Deep Singh, Adv. Versus JAMNA DATWANI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Tara V.Ganju with Ms.Preeti Gupta, Advs for Jamna Datwani. Ms. Diya Kapur, Advocate for Nitya Bharaney. Mr. Akhil Sachar (proxy counsel) for Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for Kishan Datwani. Mr.Suresh Datwani Singh for Anand CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP ...
Tag this Judgment!VipIn Kumar Mittal Vs. Lok Sabha Secretariat Through Dy. Secy. (E)
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Review Petition No.94 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No.3087 of 1999 Reserved on: May 2, 2014 Decision on: May 16, 2014 VIPIN KUMAR MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Manish Garg, Mr.Akshay Bhardwaj and Mr. Hitesh Bagai, Advocates. versus LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT THROUGH DY.SECY. (E) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocate along with Mr. Ashok P., Ex. Officer. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1605.2014 Review Petition No.94 of 2012 1. This review petition has been filed pursuant to the order dated 4 th January 2012 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.4 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner against the earlier judgment dated 6th September 2011 of this Court dismissing the writ petition.2. To appreciate the scope of the present writ petition, it is necessary to set out the aforementioned order dated 4th January 2012 of the Division Bench which reads as under:LPA42012 1. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Shramik Sangathan Vs. Delhi Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: May 07, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: May 16, 2014 CONT.CAS (C) 176/2014 DELHI SHRAMIK SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Indira Unninayar, Advocate with Mr.Kirat Randhawa, Mr.Narayan Krishan and Ms.Nina Bhalla, Advocates versus MANISH GUPTA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for SDMC Mr.Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate for R-11 and R-13 Mr.Anurag Gohil, Advocate for Mr.Sonal K.Singh, Advocate for R12 Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate with Mr.Anurag Pati, Advocate for R-16 Mr.Anjum Javed, Advocate for R11 to R-36 W.P.(C) 144/2013 DELHI SHRAMIK SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Indira Unninayar, Advocate with Mr.Kirat Randhawa, Mr.Narayan Krishan and Ms.Nina Bhalla, Advocates versus DELHI POLICE & ORS. Represented by: Cont.Cas.(C) No.176/14 & W.P.(C) No.144/13 ..... Respondents Mr.Anjum Javed, Advocate for Delhi Police Page 1 of 11 Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for SDMC CORAM: HON...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 210 of 2008 Reserved on: May 2, 2014 Decision on: May 16, 2014 MOOL PAL SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail and Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Advocates. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1605.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 23 rd February 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Complaint Case (CC) No.86 of 2002 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 26th February 2008 sentencing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of one month for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. For the offence under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, the Appellant was sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!