Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 27 of about 438 results (0.022 seconds)Babu Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.140/2012 16th May, 2014 % BABU NATH SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. S.K. Vashisht, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Counsel for the respondent (appearance not given). 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 16.12.2011 by which the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs has been dismissed.2. The case as pleaded by the appellants was that Sh. Krishan Kumar Singh, son of the appellant no.1, was travelling on 1.10.2008 from New Delhi to Chhapra (Bihar) by the Lichhawi Express on journey ticket no.Y3606166. It is pleaded that when the train reached Sahibabad railway station, Sh. Krishan Kumar Singh fell down from the running train due to jerk of the train and thrus...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. S.P.Tyagi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :12.05.2014 Judgment delivered on :16. 05.2014 CRL.A. 200/2006 STATE Through: Appellant Mr.P.K.Sharma, Standing Counsel for the CBI along with Mr.Rakesh K.Sharma, Ms.Renu Malik and Ms.Soni Mehra, Advocates. Versus S.P.TYAGI & ORS. Through: .Respondents Mr.Rajesh Harnail and Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Ajay Burman, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2002 wherein the appellant S.P.Tyagi and Sunil Kumar Choudhary had been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under Section 7 as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Crl.A. No.200/2006 2 Record shows that on the complaint (Ex.PW-2/B) of Ajay Kumar (PW-2) a pre-raid party was organized in which the shadow witness D...
Tag this Judgment!Lalita Khurana Vs. Harish Kumar Khurana and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % 1. FAO2802008 & RFA2672008 16th May, 2014 FAO No.280/2008 LALITA KHURANA ..... Appellant Through: None Versus HARISH KUMAR KHURANA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ali Mirza, Mr. Kulish Tanwar, Advocates.2. RFA No.267/2008 LALITA KHURANA ..... Appellant Through: None Versus HARISH KUMAR KHURANA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ali Mirza, Mr. Kulish Tanwar, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. On 8.5.2014 though this Court was not inclined to grant an adjournment, yet on the request of the counsel for the appellant this case was listed for today, making it clear at the same time that no further adjournment shall be granted. Today, in my opinion, as a strategy on behalf of the appellant, one Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who claims to be a relative of the appellant appears and says that the appellant wants to change her counsel, and therefore, an adjournment is...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. the Additional Director
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Sh. Jadish Sindh Chauhan, complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against order dt. 17.08.2011 passed in Complaint No. 430/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmiri Gate. 2) Relevant Facts relating to this appeal are noted below:- The complainant is Retd. Government Servant and claimed himself to be a consumer in connection with the medical facilities to be provided to him under CGHS Scheme. The Ld. District Forum through its impugned order dt. 17.08.2011 declined to hold him to be a consumer and dismissed the compliant. The Ld. State Commission was also of the opinion that the appeal had no merit and dismissed the same in limine on 19.04.2012. The appellant/complainant felt dissatisfied and preferred a revision petition before the Honble National Commission. Honble National Commission vide its order dt. 09.05.2013 set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded back the appeal t...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Singh and Anot ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Appellant/OP M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by DCDRF-VI, K.G.Marg, New Delhi under Complaint case No.1620/09. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Singh is the owner of Bolero Car bearing No.UP14 AN 0044. This vehicle was duly insured with OP/appellant for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the period 19.9.2008 to 18.9.2009. It was ensured as a private vehicle. During the intervening night of 2-3.2.2009 this vehicle was stolen from outside of complainants NOIDA office for sometime he tried to search the vehicle but could not find it. He immediately informed the local police. Intimation was also sent to Insurance Company on 3rdFebruary itself through mobile phone of Mr. Parveen and also through Fax (Exhibit Cw1/I). The vehicle could not be traced by the police. The complainant, therefore, preferred the...
Tag this Judgment!Wg Cdr S. Yadav Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
R.C. Mishra, Member, (J): 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed before the High Court of Delhi as far back as on 17th July, 1992 for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction/order (i) declaring that the punishment of œSevere Displeasure? of AOC-in-C, Western Air Command for a period of 18 months w. e. f. 25th November 1991, awarded to the petitioner vide order No. WAC/C-2801/5/P1 dated 03-12-1991 was illegal and liable to be set aside and; (ii) mandating the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Gp Capt afresh, after expunging the œsevere displeasure? remark from his service record and in case he was found suitable for promotion, to promote him retrospectively to the rank of Gp Capt with all consequential benefits including original seniority as against his batchmates. 2. Background facts , which are practically undisputed, may be summarized as under:- A. At the relevant point of time the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Kundalikrao Pharande and Others Vs. Ministry of Environment a ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Originally, Writ Petition (PIL) No.240 of 2009 was filed by Applicants in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. By order dated October 25th 2013, Hon'ble High Court (Coram : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.S. Sonak, JJ.) directed transfer of the Writ Petition to this Tribunal in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan Vrs. Union of India". The Writ Petition was thereafter registered as an Application under Section 14, 15, 16 read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. The Applicants' Counsel sought certain amendments in the pleadings on basis of analysis of samples conducted later on through an independent agency. By Order dated January 13 th 2014, the request for amendment was allowed. 2. The Applicants, in continuation of their pleadings in the petition, filed amended pleadings in this Tribunal. However, it may be noted that they have not filed a composite copy of the original pleadings alongwith amendment of t...
Tag this Judgment!Vinesh Madanaya Kalwal Vs. State of Maharashtra the Collector, Chandra ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present Application was originally listed before the Hon'ble High Court Judicature at Bombay, Bench Nagpur, as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing WP No.3501 of 2006, which was transferred to this Tribunal, vide the Hon'ble High Court order dated October 17th, 2013. The Hon'ble High Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the public cause in respect of increase in air pollution levels allegedly caused by M/s Lloyds Metal and Engineering Ltd., which is causing adverse health impacts on the villagers in the locality. Hon'ble High Court had issued various orders in this Petition from time to time and particularly on October 15th, 2008 ordered MPCB-Respondent No.2 to give monthly reports w.e.f. March 2009. Advocate Shri. C.S. Kaptan was appointed as Amicus Curie by the High Court, who has also submitted detailed reports, supporting to the cause of PIL. 2. The Applicant submits that the Application is related to air pollution caused due to the industrial units in village Ghuggus,...
Tag this Judgment!Munnilal Girijanand Shukla and Union of India, Through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This is an Application filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 14 (3) and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Applicants seek condonation of delay, if any, in filing of the Original Application No.45 of 2013. They would submit that in fact, there is no delay in filing of the Original Application, because of continuity of 'cause of action' in view of the alleged 'fraud' committed by the Respondent No.11, Rashmi Infrastructure Ltd., which will be referred to hereinafter as "M/s Rashmi Infrastructure" for the sake of brevity. Still, however, in case, if there is any delay found in filing of the main Application, they seek condonation on the ground that the delay is bonafide, justified and explained satisfactorily. 2. The Applicants allege that for the first time, the cause of action arose on 21st October, 2013, when they received information from the Environment Department of the State of Maharashtra, in reply to the RTI Appl...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Sau.) Nandini Sushrut Babhulkar and Others Vs. Maharashtra Indust ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Common Judgment 1. By this common Judgment, all the above matters, are being disposed of together, inasmuch as identical question is required to be determined in both the Appeals and the Misc. Applications. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Appeal No.7 of 2013, will be treated as leading matter and the relevant averments and documents filed therein, will be referred for the purpose of discussion. 3. Original Appellants in Appeal No.7 of 2013, Dr.(Sau) Nandini Sushrut Babhulkar and Ors, have preferred Appeal against the Environment Clearance (EC) certificate dated March 28th, 2012, granted by the Respondent No.3 -SEIAA, i.e. competent authority of the Environment Ministry of the State of Maharashtra, in favour of Respondent No.4 M/s AVH Chemicals P Ltd. (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Chemical Industry"). 4. The same the Environment Clearance (EC) certificate dated March 28th, 2012, is the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.2 of 2014, filed by the Appellant - Narsing Pat...
Tag this Judgment!