Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 41 of about 438 results (0.020 seconds)Wasif Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: May 5th, 2014 + CRL.REV.P. 45/2014 WASIF ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan & Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By way of this revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 5th October, 2013 whereby the ld.ASJ has ordered for framing of a charge u/s 363 IPC against the petitioner.2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are as under:Petitioner has been charge sheeted by the SHO of P.S. Chandni Mahal for having committed offences punishable under section 363/366 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 27.4.2013, he had kidnapped prosecutrix d/o Khursheed from the lawful guardianship of her parents with the intention to induce/compel her to marry him. The FIR was registered on the statement of Smt.Khur...
Tag this Judgment!Alka Gupta Vs. Medical Council of India and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 889/2013 & CM APPL. 1689/2013 ALKA GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Goel, Advocate Petitioner in person. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate with Mr. Mohammad Ali Choudhary, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Rabin Majumdar, Advocate and Mr. D.K. Pradhan, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Advocate with Mr. Eklavya Bahl, Advocate for Dr. Pooja Bhatia. Reserved on Date of Decision % :17. h April, 2014 :05. h May, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order passed by the Ethics Committee of respondent-Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI') dated 27th October, 2012 and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI dated 10th December, 2012 whereby, the name of the petitioner has been directed to be struck off f...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Nakshatra Steel Sales and Services Ltd. Vs. M/S Radlay Metal Produ ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 05.2014 CO.PET.373/2012 & CA No.1485/2012 M/S NAKSHATRA STEEL SALES & SERVICES LTD. ..... Petitioner versus M/S RADLAY METAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent AND + CO. PET. 375/2012 & CA No.1492/2012 M/S LEO ISPAT LTD. ..... Petitioner versus M/S RADLAY METAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Vivek Singh. For the Respondents : Mr Tanmaya Mehta. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner companies under sections 433(e) and 434 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 has failed and neglected to pay a sum of `1,03,18,917/- along with late payment charges (in Co. Pet. No.373/2012) and a sum of `1,18,11,927/- along with late payment charges (in Co. Pet. No.37...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhpat Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:05. 05.2014 + CRL.A. 1567 of 2013 SONI SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1568 of 2013 LAKHPAT Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1571 of 2013 VINOD KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1575 of 2013 DHAN BAI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 24.9.2004, on receipt of copy of DD No.62B, Head Constable Bhagirath of Police Station Sultanpuri reached House No.D-2/21, Sector-20, Sultanpuri, where ASI Karambir of Excise Department was found present. He was informed that the injured, S.I. Virender of Excise Department, had alre...
Tag this Judgment!Soni Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:05. 05.2014 + CRL.A. 1567 of 2013 SONI SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1568 of 2013 LAKHPAT Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1571 of 2013 VINOD KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1575 of 2013 DHAN BAI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mir Akhtar, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 24.9.2004, on receipt of copy of DD No.62B, Head Constable Bhagirath of Police Station Sultanpuri reached House No.D-2/21, Sector-20, Sultanpuri, where ASI Karambir of Excise Department was found present. He was informed that the injured, S.I. Virender of Excise Department, had alre...
Tag this Judgment!Sp Manchanda Vs. Medical Council of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5296/2013 SP MANCHANDA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rabin Majumdar, Advocate with Mr. D.K. Pradhan, Advocate. Petitioner in person. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate with Mr. Mohammad Ali Choudhary, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Eklavya Bahl, Advocate for Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Viubhor Garg, Advocate with Mr. Rishab Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.3. Reserved on Date of Decision % :17. h April, 2014 :05. h May, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. In view of the order passed today in W.P.(C) 889/2013, issue rule. List the matter in the category of Regular Matters according to its seniority along with W.P.(C) 889/2013. MANMOHAN, J MAY05 2014 js...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Alliance Nirman Ltd. and Another Vs. Deepa Gupta and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.1084/2008 is directed against the order dated 7.5.2012 of the CDRF-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi vide which OP was directed to refund Rs.2,36,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of booking till date of payment along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards harassment including litigation charges. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Pranav, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri R.N.Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/OP is that appellant company shifted from Narian Manzil to Barakhamba Road. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonati...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Arora and ors. Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :05. 05.2014 + W.P.(C) 2789/2014, CAV.398/2014 & C.M. NOS. 5794/2014 & 5795/2014 J.S. ARORA AND ORS. ..Petitioners Through: Sh. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Manjula Gandhi, Sh. S.K. Gandhi, Sh. Sameer Sharma and Ms. Rupali Kapoor, Advocates. Versus STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND ORS. ..Respondents Through: Sh. P.K. Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % CAV. 398/2014 Learned counsel for the caveator has put in appearance. Cav. 398/2014 accordingly stands discharged. C.M. No.5795/2014 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2789/2014, C.M. No.5794/2014 (for stay) 1. This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 21.03.2014 in Appeal No.443/2010. The impugned order W.P.(C) 2789/2014 Page 1 rejected the petitioners appeal against an o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Raghubir Singh and anr. Vs. Sh Jagdish Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h May, 2014 + MAC.APP. 841/2013 SMT RAGHUBIR SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate. versus SH JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 13.02.2013 whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.3,33,179/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation as noted above.3. Mr. O.P. Mannie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the deceased died at the age of 26 years despite that learned Tribunal has wrongly added 30% instead of 50% in his income towards future prospects.4. On this issue learned counsel has relied upon the c...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Riyasat Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:5. h May, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 371/2014 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate. Versus RIYASAT KHAN & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.7043/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 371/2014 1. Admit.2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the sole ground that the respondent No.2, i.e., driver of the offending vehicle was minor and was not holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident.3. Mr.L.K.Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that in such an eventuality, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant company from any liability instead of directing it to pay the compensation and then recover the same from respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!