Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 32 of about 438 results (0.021 seconds)Smt. Santosh Arora and ors Vs. Sh. M.L. Arora
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13. h May, 2014 % + FAO(OS) 579/2013 & CM No.20049/2013 (for stay) SMT. SANTOSH ARORA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate. Versus SH. M.L. ARORA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 27th September, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court (exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction) of dismissal of application being IA No.742/2013 filed by the appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint in CS(OS) No.1982/2012 filed by the respondent.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ad interim order dated 17th December, 2013, the operation of the said order dated 27th September, 2013 was stayed and further proceedings in the suit also stayed.3. We have heard the counsel for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:13. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 5360/2013 & CM119932013 ROHINI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD.) ..... Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Kamal Gupta. For the Respondents : Mr Rajiv Bansal for respondent No.1/DDA. Mr Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with Mr Ravjyot Singh for respondent No.2/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The present writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notice for penalty charges amounting to Rs 91,94,049/- vide letter dated 12.07.2013 issued by Delhi Development Authority to the petitioner Society. The challenge to the said notice is premised on being ultra vires the notification dated 17.07.2012 as well as in disregard of the orders passed by this Court on 20.07.2012 and 09.11.2012.2. Brief facts relevan...
Tag this Judgment!Jockey International Inc and anr Vs. R Chandra Mohan and ors
Court: Delhi
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :13. h May, 2014 % + CS(OS) 253/2012 JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL INC AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Nischal Anand, Adv. versus R CHANDRA MOHAN AND ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Adv. for D-1 to D-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, damages and rendition of accounts. Summons were issued in the suit on 01.02.2012. On an application for appointment of Local Commissioner moved by the plaintiffs, two Local Commissioners were appointed in the matter. Summons were issued to defendant No.6 on several dates and was finally served through publication. Despite service none appeared for defendant No.6, consequently defendant No.6 was proceeded ex parte on 20.03.2014.2. On 06.05.2014, plaintiffs and defendants No.4, 5 and 7 filed application under Order 23 ...
Tag this Judgment!University of Delhi Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on May 12, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2117/2014 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Represented by: versus SURINDER KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: + ..... Respondents Mr.Amitesh Kumar with Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocates for UGC/R4 Mr.Vijay K., Advocate for UOI/R5 W.P.(C) 2118/2014 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Represented by: versus CHAMAL LAL WATAL & ORS. Represented by: + ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.K.Pathak, Advocate ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.K.Pathak, Advocate ..... Respondents Mr.Amitesh Kumar with Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocates for UGC/R4 Mr.Joginder Sukhija, Advocate with Mr.M.P.Singh, Advocate for R2, R3, R5 & R6 W.P.(C) 2121/2014 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Represented by: versus KISHAN SINGH ANHAL & ORS. Represented by: W.P.(C)Nos.2117,2118,2121 & 2123 of 2014 ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.K.Pathak, Advocate Mr.Amitesh ..... Respondents Kumar with Page 1 of 9 Mr.Shashank...
Tag this Judgment!Kalindee Rail Nirman (Emgomeers) Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 2102/2014 & CM43852014 KALINDEE RAIL NIRMAN (EMGOMEERS) LIMITED ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ritesh Kumar and Mr Arjun Pall, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Dhruv Dewan, Advocate for R-1. Mr Anil K. Seth, Advocate with Mr Manoj Kumar, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the letters dated 06.03.2014 and 20.03.2014 issued by the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited whereby the request of the petitioner for replacement of Balfour Beatty Group Limited by two partners namely GMR Infrastructure Limited (GMR) and Tata Projects Limited (TPL) was not agreed to in terms of Clause 1.14 (d) of the general conditions of the contract.2. Pursuant to the Not...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.313 of 2014 & CRL.M. (B). No.557 of 2014 Reserved on: May 6, 2014 Decision on: May 12, 2014 AMAR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP for State with SI Parmendra Kumar from PS. Paharganj CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1205.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th September 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.56 of 2012 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 376, 448, 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 1st October 2013 sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for two years for the offence under Section 376 IPC, RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, to undergo SI for two months for the offence under Section 448 IPC and to RI fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Kundan Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.200/2004 12th May, 2014 % SH. KUNDAN LAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ashish Kapur, Advocate. Versus STATE AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate. 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 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the judgment of the probate court dated 31.5.2004 by which the probate court below has allowed the application of the respondent no.2 herein for revocation of the letters of administration granted on 6.2.1997 in the probate case bearing no.163/1997 in favour of the appellant/petitioner.2. Before me, it could not be disputed, as stated in para 2 of the impugned judgment, that the issue of whether the deceased Sh. Gokal Chand did or did not renounce the world and became Swami Kesar Bharti was subject matter of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Abid Alias Bengali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.399/2014 Date of decision:12. h May, 2014 MOHD. ABID alias BENGALI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State with Inspector Sudhir Kumar, PS Jagatpuri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): Mohd. Abid @ Bengali by the impugned judgment dated 26th September, 2013 stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Mohd. Illiyas on 3rd April, 2010 at about 1.40 a.m. under flyover at Karkari crossing. The conviction arises out of FIR No.135/2010, police station Jagatpuri, which was registered on 16th April, 2010 at 4.55 p.m. By order on sentence dated 5th October, 2013, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which he has to undergo simple impriso...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and anr. Vs. Kalpa Suri and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.165-166/2006 12th May, 2014 UOI & ANR. Through: ......Appellants Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. A.S.Singh, Advocates. VERSUS KALPA SURI & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: None. 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 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 1.6.2006 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent herein and who is the widow of the deceased employee Sh. Ram Prasad.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased was employed by the appellant as an electrician. He was 46 years as on 6.2.1997, the date of the accident. On 6.2.1997, he was doing electrical work in the Air Force Station as per instructions from the superiors when he fell down from the stairs on which he was working and suffered fatal injuries. Sh. Ram Prasad was admitted to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sati Dass Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.18/2012 12th May, 2014 % SATI DASS Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Zeshan Khan, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This case was passed over twice as no one had appeared for the respondent. It is 12.20 P.M. I have therefore heard the counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record I am proceeding to decide this appeal.2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.9.2011 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/applicant. The claim petition was filed on account of injuries caused to the appellant in an untoward incident on 28.1.2010. 3(i) The facts of the case are that the appellant, aged 55 years, a labourer by profession, was travelling by a passenger train wi...
Tag this Judgment!